William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
About Us Office Location Contact Us
Constitutional Law
Nonprofit Law
Postal Law
Health Law
Firearms Law
Election Law
Litigation
Biblical Wisdom
Press Coverage
Publications
HIstorical Documents
Martial Law
Executive Orders
Favorite Links
Follow Us Olsonlaw

Sign Up Today!

Sign up for our     
Newsletter     

William J. Olson P.C.
Files 50th Supreme Court Brief



On May 13, 2011, with our amicus curiae brief in the Daniel Chapter One case, our firm had the privilege of making its 50th filing with the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes various types of filings: Petition for Certiorari, Jurisdictional Statement, Appellants' Brief, Reply Brief, Brief for Intervenor-Respondents, Amicus Brief at the Petition Stage, and Amicus Brief on the Merits.

Of course, most of these briefs have been amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, and many have addressed a wide variety of Constitutional issues --

Article I Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine)
Article I Section 2 (Census, Apportionment Clause)
Article I Section 4 (Time, Places and Manners of Elections)
Article I Section 6 (Speech & Debate Clause)
Article I Section 8 (Commerce Clause, Naturalization Clause, General Welfare Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause)

Article II Section 1 (Delegation Doctrine)
Article II Section 2 (Invasion)
Article II (Appointments Clause, Commander-in-Chief)

Article III, Section 2 (Case and Controversy, Standing, Political Question)
Article III Section 1 (Judicial Power)

Article IV Section IV (Republican Form of Government, Invasion)Article VI (Preemption)

First Amendment (Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Right to Assemble, Right to Petition Government)
Second Amendment
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection Component)
Tenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges & Immunities)

Other briefs have addressed important statutory issues (U.N. Participation Act, Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, Firearms Owners Protection Act, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal Election Campaign Act, etc.).

Our first Supreme Court filing was October 16, 1981, supporting the legality of President Reagan's action against striking air traffic controllers, which translates into 50 briefs in 30 years -- but we have been picking up the pace lately. Of course, we have also filed many other briefs in various U.S. District Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, State Supreme Courts, etc. (All of these filings since the late 1990's and some earlier briefs are available on this website, and we are working to post the older filings as well.)


previous | 2014 |2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-1999 | next
Western Center for Journalism article on United States v. Wurie
April 9, 2014

Our amicus brief in United States v. Wurie was the subject of an article by the Western Center for Journalism.

Gun Owners of America & Gun Owners Foundation Comments to ATF on “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective”
April 7, 2014

President Obama announced that his Administration would do all in its power to stop gun violence, and by that he seems to have meant restricting private ownership to firearms. Now it turns out that he is not limiting himself to doing things within his power — as he is resorting to amending statutes unilaterally.

On January 7, 2014, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), issued Proposed Rules designed to vastly increase the number of Americans prohibited from owning firearms, including many U.S. Veterans, by changing the meaning of words contained in laws passed by Congress.

On behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation, our firm filed comments opposing those proposed ATF rule Federal law prohibits persons who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” from owning firearms. ATF claims that the terminology Congress used in the statute is “outdated,” and while it claims it wants to “clarify” the term, it is readily apparent that ATF instead wants to rewrite the statute, and greatly expand its scope.

ATF alleges that Congress intended the law to apply “broadly” to “unstable” and “irresponsible” people, and has defined the term as including people who suffer from a “mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” But that is not what the statute says. A “mental defective” was considered a person of “marked subnormal intelligence” or “gross ignorance or imbecility.” Congress never intended the law to apply to combat veterans suffering from PTSD, but that is one of the groups that have been targeted for disarmament.

Federal law also prohibits persons who have been “committed to a mental institution” from owning firearms. ATF wants to change the meaning of that phrase to apply to “both inpatient and outpatient commitments.” Those are, of course, very different matters. Inpatient commitment is generally used when a person is unable to function in society and needs to be forcibly confined for treatment in order to protect him and/or the public. Outpatient treatment, however, is for less significant problems, and may require a person only to take medication or follow some other course of prescribed treatment.

Finally, our comments noted that ATF never bothered to consider the Second Amendment when proposing its new definitions. After Heller, though, the government can no longer assume it may deprive people of their rights at will. Instead of requiring a formal adjudication by a court before a person’s rights are taken from him, ATF has permitted unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, such as those at the Veterans Administration, to decide willy-nilly who may and may not own guns.

This sort of lawless activity may be what Americans are accustomed to from this rogue agency, but it is not what they deserve. Government officials are the servants of the people, not their overlords.

Herb Titus Quoted in BNA Article “Aiding and Abetting Use of Firearm Requires Advance Knowledge of Gun”
March 13, 2014

Herb Titus was quoted in a Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”) Criminal Law Reporter article entitled “Aiding and Abetting Use of Firearm Requires Advance Knowledge of Gun.” The article involves the case Rosemond v. United States, in which our firm filed an amicus brief on August 9, 2013.

Herb was quoted as saying that “bare knowledge of the presence of a firearm is sufficient reason to impose an additional mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of five years.... The ruling has the effect of taking from the jury the key question of defendant’s guilt—his intent concerning the use of a firearm [and] upholds the power of prosecutors, not judges, to determine sentences given to thousands of defendants ... Prosecutors will continue to have power de facto to impose mandatory minimum sentences — the very sort of sentences that Attorney General Eric Holder claims to oppose.”

U.S. Justice Foundation Comments to HHS on HIPAA Privacy Rule and the NICS System
March 10, 2014

Our firm filed comments for U.S. Justice Foundation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) opposing its Proposed Rule designed to decrease the number of Americans who may possess firearms, particular adversely affecting Veterans.

Our comments explain that the HIPAA Privacy Rules have been perverted from their original purpose to enhance patient confidences. Especially, with the new proposed amendments, these rules are now better understood as not involving privacy, but providing a justification for the federal government to have access to all of your private medical information.

Moreover, the HHS proposed regulations are likely to have an adverse effect on veterans. It has been widely reported that veterans who may need help filling out complicated benefits paperwork are being administratively categorized (not “adjudicated” as required by statute) by unqualified persons wholly without due process of law. They are being placed on the NICS list, unconstitutionally depriving them of their Second Amendment rights.

The Veterans Administration apparently considers a veteran who has been issued a fully automatic weapon to help defend the country against overseas threats, but who needs help to navigate its considerable bureaucracy, to be mentally incompetent and disqualified from owning a semi-automatic weapon upon his return to this country. Such classifications are insufficient as a matter of law because they do not constitute a finding, and are not based on findings, that meet the statutory standard of “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” Once so categorized, the veteran must navigate yet another bureaucracy to undo the damage that its claims processors do, only to discover that there is there is essentially little veterans can do to regain their Second Amendment rights.

Gun Owners Foundation Comments to HHS on HIPAA Privacy Rule and the NICS System
March 10, 2014

Our firm filed comments for Gun Owners Foundation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) opposing its Proposed Rule designed to decrease the number of Americans who may possess firearms, even for self defense in the home.

The HHS Proposed Rule (“PR”) is one of the “23 executive actions” announced by the Obama Administration allegedly in response to the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting. It proposes changes in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) regulations which were designed to establish national standards to protect the privacy of healthcare records. This PR would authorize health care providers to provide information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”).

Under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4), Congress banned from firearms posession only persons “adjudicated” mentally defective or “committed” to a mental institution — both of which require a formal, judicial process. ATF, however, has unilaterally expanded the law through its regulations to bar ownership of firearms by anyone who has been informally “found” or “determined” to lack the capacity to manage his affairs on account of mental “incompetence.” This expanded definition potentially includes Veterans Administration bureaucrats to bar tens of thousands of veterans who seek post-combat treatment for PTSD, or even older vets seeking a guardian to help with his finances, from owning firearms.

The HHS regulations make the illegal ATF regulations even worse by waiving the privacy rights we have in our own medical records, and allow all sorts of new entities to decide we are dangerous, and report us to NICS.

HHS claims its PR is necessary to remove a “perceived barrier” for reporting to NICS. Our comments noted that HHS appears to be operating under a misconception that states are not reporting to NICS solely because they misunderstand HIPAA. HHS never stops to consider that states may decline to report to NICS about persons who they do not believe meet the statutory definition.

HHS wants to make an end run around state entities that have been designated to report to NICS. Our comments reminded HHS that, under our federal system, it is for the states — not an unelected federal bureaucrat — to designate who reports to NICS. We also explained that its PR would make it much harder to get erroneous information removed from NICS. Finally, our comments criticized HHS for usurping the role of the Department of Justice, by authorizing health care providers to submit even more private medical information than NICS requests.

Brief Filed Opposing Ohio’s “Ministry of Truth”
Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Election Commission
(Read brief here)
March 3, 2014

Taking a page out of Orwell’s novel 1984, the Ohio Elections Commission operates as a modern “Ministry of Truth’ — with the power to “determine” and “proclaim” the truth or falsity of every statement made during an Ohio political campaign. Our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the government has no legitimate role whatsoever to play in guiding Americans as to how to vote.

Here is what happened. Two political committees sought to defeat Congressman Steve Driehaus during the 2012 election cycle by claiming he supported taxpayer-funded abortion when he voted in favor of Obamacare.

Driehaus complained that the claim was false, and filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission. A committee of Commission members agreed, finding probable cause that the SBA List knew the charge was false. Because of this, the billboard company refused to erect their billboards containing the anti-Driehaus message. Before the full Commission could act, Driehaus lost the election, and withdrew his charge.

The political committees, however, took the matter to federal court, contending that the action taken by the Commission “chilled” their political speech protected by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the case, not on the merits, but on the ground that the First Amendment claim was not yet “ripe” for decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed, as both courts opined that since neither organization had been prosecuted, and neither organization could produce any evidence that they would be chilled in any future campaign, their First Amendment complaint had not yet matured into a an actual case or controversy.

We urged the Supreme Court to find that the groups had, in fact, presented a First Amendment claim that is ready for judicial decision on the merits. We point out that the claim was not based upon whether the Ohio law, in fact, keeps protected speech out of the political marketplace of ideas, but whether, as a matter of law, Ohio has any jurisdiction whatsoever to enter the political marketplace of ideas to ferret out truth from alleged falsehood.

In America — where the people, not the government, are sovereign — it is for the people, not bureaucrats, to decide who, in the heat of a political campaign, is telling the truth and who is allegedly telling lies. As Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in 1779, “the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction,” therefore leaving no room for a government Ministry of Truth.

Drake v. Jerejian
Amicus brief challenging
New Jersey’s Concealed Carry Laws
February 12, 2014

In New Jersey, it is a crime to possess a firearm unless you can prove that you fit within one or more tightly-drawn statutory exemptions. One exemption allows a person to have a handgun on his own property, but he may not step one foot beyond unless the gun is fully disabled and he is heading to an approved destination.

New Jersey carry permits are like honest politicians — they are rumored to exist, but few have ever actually seen one. As one State legislator observed: “It is virtually never done.” An ordinary person may be granted a permit only if he can prove to the satisfaction of a judge that his life is in grave danger. Certain members of the privileged class of government workers are permitted to carry firearms; they need only prove that they are currently or were formerly employed in law enforcement.

Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of John M. Drake and several other ordinary New Jersey citizens who applied for but were denied permits to carry their handguns in public, because they could not prove that their lives were in imminent danger. Our brief makes three arguments.

First, the federal judges below simply refused to analyze the New Jersey gun control scheme according to the original meaning of the Second Amendment and established constitutional norms. Instead, judges in both courts substituted their own ideas about gun control in disregard of America’s founders.

Second, New Jersey’s ban on carrying a firearm rests upon the premise that firearms are a privilege granted by the state rather than an inherent, individual right, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2010 McDonald decision.

Third, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “all Americans,” as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in the 2008 Heller decision. That is because, as the Second Amendment states, the right is “necessary to the security of a free State.” New Jersey, on the other hand, grants the privilege only to current and former government law enforcement, purportedly to ensure a “safe” State.

We hope that the Supreme Court will grant the petition for certiorari in this case in order to restore the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self defense.

Our brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.

Herb Titus Addresses Virginia House of Delegates Republican Caucus
February 4, 2014

Herb Titus was invited to address the Republican Caucus of the Virginia House of Delegates on HJR 9 — a call for a national constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Herb explained that while the concept of using Article VI to address erroneous judicial decisions might seem tempting, it was fraught with risk. Unlike the process by which Congress may submit to the State legislatures specific written amendments, the convention process for proposing amendments is open-ended with no control of the number, scope, or subject matters of the amendments and no rules governing the number or selection of the delegates.

On January 31, 2014, the House Committee on Rules recommended that HJR 9 be adopted by the full House, by a vote of 9 yes - 6 no.

On February 6, 2014, two days after Herb's presentation, the House defeated the resolution by a vote of 29 yes - 67 no.

A story discussing the important role played by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) in explaining to the Delegates the problems associated with the problems appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Obamacare Contraception/Abortion Services Mandate
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius
U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief
January 28, 2014

The story is told of a grizzled Master Sargent who, reflecting on his years of service, said: “When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it’s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it’s mandatory.” So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights. First, the goal is said to be tolerance. Then, governmental approval and support. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance disappears, and the coercive force of government is used to eliminate any vestige of opposition. The Obamacare contraception/abortion mandate demonstrates that our nation is at the end of phase two, moving into phase three.

On January 28, 2014, our firm filed in the U.S. Supreme Court an amicus brief in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Mennonite family-owned business located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The company has been ordered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to purchase health insurance to cover their employees that pays for contraceptive services, including “the full-range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”

While Obamacare uses the term contraceptive, that term has undergone a dramatic shift in meaning over the past 50 years. In the array of what are called “contraceptives” are true abortifacients — drugs and devices that induce a miscarriage or an abortion, and the death of an embryo.

Objecting on the ground that the mandate forces them to buy insurance that permits and facilitates abortion to which they object on religious grounds, the Hahn family who own Conestoga, sought injunctive relief in a federal district court, claiming that the mandate violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted the Hahn family’s petition for review, and the case is pending with a decision expected by the end of June, 2014.

In an introductory Statement our brief reminds the Court that the contraceptive mandate does not appear in the Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress and signed by the President. The mandate was not even developed by the Department of Heath and Human Services, or any other agency responsible to he President. Instead, it is the product of a Committee of 16 experts appointed by the Institute of Medicine, a nongovernment agency that is not accountable to the people or their elected representatives.

In the opinion of this Committee of experts, the contraceptive mandate is required because a woman’s “well-being” consists of a life of recreational sexual activity without risk of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is this opinion that HHS has made into law.

Our brief supports the Hahn family claim that the mandate violates their rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unlike the Hahn family brief which relies upon court precedents supporting religious tolerance, our brief rests upon the original First Amendment text that secures freedom of religion. According to the cases that apply the religious tolerance doctrine, a person’s conscience may be overridden by laws that serve a compelling government interest. Under the First Amendment freedom of religion a person’s conscience cannot be violated no matter how “compelling” the government’s interest may be.

The original understanding of “religion,” as it appears in the First Amendment, appeared earlier in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. Unlike the First Amendment the Virginia Declaration expressly defines religion as a duty owed to the Creator which is enforceable only by reason, not by force. In a statute passed in 1785 by the Virginia General Assembly, the preamble declared that it would be a violation of the free exercise of religion if a law compelled a person to promote an opinion with which he disagreed. Our brief applies this principle to the contraceptive services mandate which compels the Hahn family business to promote a government program of education and counseling encouraging women to use abortion-inducing contraceptives to reduce the risk of “unwanted pregnancies.”

The Obamacare law is based upon an unproved presumption that a woman’s “well-being” depends upon having as wide an array of contraceptive methods, including abortifacients, as is made available by the FDA, so that she can be sexually active without risking an unplanned pregnancy. The Hahn family, however, does not share the Government’s materialistic view of womanhood, and that the Government has no jurisdiction to define what it means to be a healthy woman.

Finally our brief reminds the Court that forbearance is a Christian virtue and that the contraceptive services mandate prevents the Hahn family from practicing that virtue by mandating complicity in what they believe to be the sin of abortion in violation of the Hahn family’s statement of faith in the sanctity of human life, supporting that position with quotations from the Holy Bible.

In summary our brief maintains that according to the original meaning of the free exercise of religion, the federal government is prohibited from enforce the contraceptive mandate because it prohibits the Hahn family from performing their duties to their Creator according to the dictates of conscience.

This amicus brief was our fourth amicus curiae brief filed thus far against Obamacare in its various manifestations.

Our brief was filed on behalf of Eberle Communications Group, Inc., D&D Unlimited Inc., Joyce Meyer Ministries, Southwest Radio Bible Ministry, Daniel Chapter One, U.S. Justice Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center.

Quinn v. Texas
Brief Filed Opposing No-Knock Home Raids
January 27, 2014

Every day we read about SWAT teams serving arrest warrants or search warrants at people’s homes, using no-knock raids in the middle of the night. Many of these police home invasions go wrong, with innocent people being shot, and sometimes killed, just because they were trying to defend themselves.  Even criminals have learned to claim that they are the police while breaking into homes, to discourage resistance.

An important case now presents the significant legal issue of whether police are justified in using no-knock home invasions simply because they know the occupants own a firearm.  On January 27, 2014, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Quinn v. Texas, in support of the grant of a petition for certiorari, to obtain a review of this issue. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-765.htm

John Quinn was asleep in his bed when Texas police broke down his door in the middle of the night, and shot him when he reached for a weapon, thinking his home was being invaded. The police were there to serve a search warrant for his son, Brian, who they suspected of dealing drugs.

The only justification for the no-knock raid that police gave was that John Quinn owned a firearm. The police claimed that firearms ownership was enough to present a danger to law enforcement, even though they knew John Quinn had a concealed carry permit — meaning the state of Texas had pronounced him to be a safe, law-abiding citizen.

It is a foundational Fourth Amendment principle that, when executing a warrant, the police must knock and announce their presence and purpose, and allow a homeowner the time to let them in. This principle is designed to preserve a person’s life (so he is not accidentally shot), his property (his front door), and his dignity (if, for example, he is in the shower). Only if the police have “exigent circumstances” has the Supreme Court permitted entry without knocking.

Our amicus brief pointed out that the police dispensed with the Fourth Amendment and executed a no-knock raid for the sole reason that Quinn had chosen to exercise his Second Amendment rights to keep a firearm in his home for self defense.

The Texas court held that it did not matter if the police violated Quinn’s rights with the no knock raid, since they would have searched his home and found drugs anyway. Our brief answers that in doing so, the Texas court essentially created a per se rule that, any time the police have a warrant, they can dispense with the Fourth Amendment, knowing that a court will later rule they “would have found it anyway.”

Finally, our brief noted the Court’s recent holding in U.S. v. Jones (a 2012 Supreme Court case in which we filed two briefs), where the Court returned to the private property roots of the Fourth Amendment, instead of the atextual “reasonable expectation of privacy” tests that had been invented in the 1960's. The brief argued that, after Jones, the Court needs to re-examine no-knock raids from a property — rather than a privacy — perspective.

Our society is one where no-knock raids — supposedly the exception — have become the rule, due to aggressive, militaristic policing, and permissive courts. Often, innocent people, and even family pets defending their homes are caught up in the crossfire when police make mistakes. Having a rule where the police can break down a person’s front door simply because he may keep a firearm inside is simply intolerable.

Our brief was filed on behalf of: U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, and DownsizeDC.org.

Chris Hedges v. Barack Obama
Amicus Brief urges Supreme Court to bar NDAA Military Detentions of Citizens
January 23, 2014

Today our firm has filed our third amicus brief in support of Chris Hedges and the other journalists and political activists who are challenging Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf), and its authorization of the military detention of civilians based on vague standards of providing "support" for an adversary of the United States.

These NDAA standards were so vague that when asked, the U.S. Justice Department refused to say that Chris Hedges and the other plaintiffs could not be arrested by the military, e.g., for their reporting on middle eastern affairs, which includes interviews with, and even embeds with, foreign organizations.

This brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging that it grant certiorari and review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge detention, as the NDAA statute did not really say what it appeared to say, and that it was a nullity as to American Citizens. The Second Circuit left unaddressed whether American citizens could be detained by the military under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23) passed hurriedly after the events of September 11, 2001.

Our brief explained why the Court needs to address the issue of military detention of civilians. It explained that NDAA 2012 was fundamentally different from the AUMF. It explains that laws are often written in an ambiguous manner to give politicians deniability when called to account by their constituents. And it discussed how why NDAA 2012 eliminated the protections of the U.S. Constitution's treason clause.

Our brief states:
"If this Court does not grant the petition, there is no reason to believe that U.S. Presidents would cease to assert "the right to place certain individuals [including American citizens] in military detention, without trial." Id. There would continue to be no statutory constraint on an arrest being authorized by a military officer of unspecified rank. There would be no protection provided by the requirement of a Grand Jury indictment. There would be no requirement of an arrest warrant issued by an Article III judge, supported by a sworn affidavit showing probable cause of the commission of a specific crime. Neither would there be any protection against use of compelled testimony, or against any violation of due process of law. There would be no civilian proceedings whatsoever against the person detained. Indeed, there is no requirement that the individual being detained has committed any federal crime, and military detentions could be used to circumvent the protections afforded American citizens by the Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

Our brief concluded:
"Ninety years ago, Franz Kafka gave the world a glimpse into the terror faced by individuals required to prove their innocence against unspecified charges in a world devoid of the rule of law. See F. Kafka, The Trial (1925). No American citizen should be subject to secret arrest and indefinite detention by the military, exempt from the protections of the Bill of Rights, and made even more terrifying by the threat of rendition to a foreign country for purposes that could include torture that is illegal in the United States."

We began working against this dangerous bill with organizations such as DownsizeDC.org and Gun Owners of America as soon as word circulated about its detention provisions during Thanksgiving weekend 2011.

Then, on April 16, 2012, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York -- the only amicus brief filed in that case supporting the granting of an injunction against the federal government. http://lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Hedges_Amicus.pdf
District Judge Kathleen Forrest issued first a preliminary, then a permanent injunction against NDAA detentions.

On December 17, 2012, we filed another amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
http://lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Hedges_Amicus_2ndCir.pdf

Our brief was filed on behalf of the following individuals and organizations:
U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall
Virginia Senator Dick Black
U.S. Justice Foundation
Gun Owners Foundation
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
Center for Media and Democracy
Downsize DC Foundation
DownsizeDC.org
Free Speech Defense and Education Fund
Free Speech Coalition
Western Journalism Center
The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education
Institute on the Constitution
Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
Tenth Amendment Center
Restoring Liberty Action Committee
U.S. Border Control Foundation
Policy Analysis Center
Constitution Party National Committee
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Professor Jerome Aumente

New York Times covers our 2013 brief in NLRB v. Canning and Bill Olson's 1981 Recess Appointment by President Reagan
January 10, 2014

Today the New York Times ran an article by its Chief Washington Correspondent Carl Hulse which discussed our brief in the NLRB v. Canning case being argued Monday. The article, entitled "Role Reversals Emerge in Dispute Over Obama's Recess Appointments," discussed Bill Olson's recess appointment by President Reagan in 1981 to be Chairman of the Board of the Legal Services Corporation.

The article does not mention that President Reagan's appointments of Bill and the other directors were challenged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the board members appointed by President Carter, including one of Bill's predecessor as Board Chairman -- Hillary Rodham, then First Lady of Arkansas. There, the 1982 challenge was on a different basis than the Canning case. In 1982, the contention was that LSC Board Members were not "Officers of the United States" within the meaning of Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Rodham challenge was rejected by District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who pointed out the irony that four of the former directors filing the challenge had been appointed by President Carter, using the same recess appointment power which those plaintiffs were challenging.
http://lawandfreedom.com/site/special/LegalServCorpvOlson_MemOpin.PDF

Article about Utah polygamy ruling commented on by Herb Titus
January 9, 2014

Herb Titus was quoted in John Aman's article "'Gays' Move Over -- Here Come Polygamists" in WorldNet Daily.
The article discusses Judge Clark Waddoups Memorandum Decision and Order approving of polygamy, applying the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

previous | 2014 |2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-1999 | next
Constitutional Law | Nonprofit Law | Postal Law | Health Law | Firearms Law | Election Law | Litigation
Biblical Wisdom | Press Coverage | Publications | Historical Documents | Martial Law
Executive Orders | About Us | Office Location | Contact Us | Favorite Links

Copyright © 2013 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.
Site maintained by: M. L. Harless

This William J. Olson, P.C. Web site, including all information and material appearing herein, is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to -- and does not -- constitute legal advice, advertising, or solicitation. No one should rely or act on any information contained on this Web site, including other sites that may be referenced herein, without seeking professional advice or counsel. No advice or counsel is provided in or by this Web site. Furthermore, no attorney-client relationship is created, or established, between William J. Olson, P.C. or any of its attorneys and anyone by virtue of anyone accessing or using this Web site, transmitting information to the Web site or receiving information from the Web site. William J. Olson, P.C. does not recommend use of the Internet, including e-mail, for the transmission of confidential, proprietary, and/or otherwise sensitive information.