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HIstorical Documents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

William J. Olson P.C.
Files 75th Supreme Court Amicus Brief



On August 13, 2014, our firm had the privilege of filing its 75th amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Rudy v. Lee. In addition, we have made 12 other filings in the U.S. Supreme Court (for a total of 87 filings), such as: Petition for Certiorari, Jurisdictional Statement, Appellants' Brief, Reply Brief, and Brief for Intervenor-Respondents.

In addition to statutory issues, these briefs 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. 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
Chenoweth, et al. v. Clinton, et al. December 30, 1999

Today we filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of eight members of Congress (Hon. John T. Doolittle, Hon. George Radanovich, Hon. Tom Tancredo, Hon. Bob Stump, Hon. Barbara Cubin, Hon. Tom A. Coburn, Hon. Wally Herger, and Hon. John E. Perterson) and four nonprofit organizations (Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Gun Owners Foundation, Citizens United Foundation, and Concerned Women for America).

We believe we gave the Supreme Court good reasons to find that Representatives Chenoweth, Schaffer, Young, and Pombo have standing to challenge the constitutionality of President Clinton's American Heritage Rivers initiative. A victory in this case would be an important step toward obtaining judicial review of unconstitutional Executive Orders generally. (On March 6, 2000, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.)
Boy Scout Brief (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari) November 26, 1999

The Olson law firm filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States and the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education defending the right of the Boy Scouts to determine their own leadership.

This brief urges that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari and review the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court which compels the Boy Scouts there to retain a homosexual activist as a scoutmaster, under the New Jersey state "Law Against Discrimination." (The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.)

CATO Study: The Power of a President to Rule by Executive Order October 28, 1999

“The problem of presidents’ using executive orders to legislate, usurping the powers of Congress or the states, has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century,” William Olson, co-author of a new Cato Institute study on the abuse of executive orders, told the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the House Rules Committee today. “This raises fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers. The Constitution does not provide for the power of a president to rule by executive order.”

Olson co-authored the study, “Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to ‘Run the Country’ by Usurping Legislative Power,” with Alan Woll.
Testimony on Executive Orders before the House Rules Committee's Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process October 27, 1999

Bill Olson was asked to testify before the House Rules Committee's Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process. The topic of the hearing was "The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking?" Bill Olson also submitted answers to questions before the House Rules Committee's Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
Bill Olson Speech on Executive Orders July 14, 1999

Bill Olson spoke at a National Conference on Presidential Powers and Executive Orders at the headquarters of the Reserve Officers Association of the U.S. The title of his presentation was "Martial Law, Y2K, and Presidential Power"
Free Speech Coalition Comments to FEC on Membership February 1, 1999

On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we filed comments with the Federal Election Commission supporting the proposed changes to revise the definition of a "member" of a membership organization, so long as the changes set forth in FSC's comments are incorporated into the adopted regulations.  The first change is that membership organizations be permitted to waive the dues criterion for membership in appropriate instances according to predetermined specific criteria (such as financial hardship) approved by the organization's governing body, restoring the pre-1993 status quo. Next, FSC requests that the expanded requirements imposed on membership organizations to state expressly the rights, qualifications, obligations, and requirements for membership in its articles, bylaws and other formal organizational documents and to make these documents freely available to its members be stricken from the final regulations.  The last change is that certain proposed sections which reject the state law definitions of "membership organizations" and "member" be removed from the final regulations.
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 © 2014 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.

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.