|
|
 |
|
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.)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael A. Newdow
|
December 19, 2003
|
|
| Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Citizens United Foundation in this Pledge of Allegiance case. This amicus brief addresses the vital threshold issue of standing. |
|
| Today Bill Olson was a guest on Linda Chavez' syndicated radio show on Liberty Broadcasting to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the McCain-Feingold case. |
|
Barrow County, Georgia —
Ten Commandments Case
|
November 14, 2003
|
|
| Our firm has been retained to represent Barrow County Georgia and the Chairman of its Board of Commissioners, in a case challenging their right to allow a citizen to display the Ten Commandments in a county building.
Today the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as well as a supporting Memorandum of Law. We asked the court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failing to seek leave of court to proceed with an anonymous plaintiff, and asked the court to deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
|
|
|
Campaign Finance Laws: Incumbents' Best Friends
|
October 20, 2003
|
|
| In this article, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, discusses the Paul Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and how our freedom of the press arguments surfaced at oral argument through questions posed by various Supreme Court Justices. |
|
|
Constitution Day Speech
|
September 17, 2003
|
| On September 17, 2003, Constitution Day, Bill Olson gave a speech entitled "McCain-Feingold's Assault on the Constitution" during ceremonies in Washington, D.C. sponsored by The Conservative Caucus. |
|
|
Mexican Social Security Totalization Agreement
|
September 11, 2003
|
|
| Our firm assisted with respect to testimony of U.S. Border Control filed before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives.
|
|
|
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument
|
September 8, 2003
|
|
With 12 consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and only four appellant lawyers permitted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court today, we were not permitted to present our case to the Court except through our written briefs.
We were pleased, however, that three of the issues which we litigated were repeatedly addressed during the oral argument in questions posed by the Justices:
- Unconstitutionality of FECA/BCRA due to Media Exemption
(see Paul Appellants' Brief pp. 26, 39, & 48, and Paul Appellants' Reply Brief pp. 1 & 2)
- Freedom of the Press
(see Paul Appellants' Brief pp. 16-44, and Paul Appellants' Reply Brief pp. 3-6)
- Inappropriateness of Judiciary Deferring to Congress in a Matter of Self-interest (i.e., re-election)
(see Paul Appellants' Brief pp. 6-16, and Paul Appellants' Reply Brief pp. 5-8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Administration Defends Clinton Executive Order
|
July 28, 2003
|
|
| A story quoted Bill Olson criticizing the Bush Justice Department's defense in the U.S. Supreme Court of President Clinton's proclamation restricting access to seven national monuments and to millions of acres of public land. |
|
|
McCain-Feingold's Opponents Fight For Time In Court
|
July 27, 2003
|
|
| A Washington Times article quoted Bill Olson regarding the appellants' proposals for division of Supreme Court oral argument time in the consolidated cases challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. |
|
|
FEC Challenge — Response in Opposition to Allocation of Oral Argument TIme Proposed by Certain Appellants
|
July 18, 2003
|
|
| Today we filed our Response of Appellants, Congressman Ron Paul, et al., in Opposition to Allocation of Oral Argument Time Proposed in Motion for Divided Argument of Certain Aligned Appellants. We previously asked the Supreme Court for 20 minutes of the four-hour oral argument time, while certain other appellants asked that we, and a few other appellants including the NRA, be given none of the oral argument time. |
|
|
Coalition for Postal Worksharing Comments to the U.S. Postal Service
|
July 18, 2003
|
|
| Our firm submitted comments to the U.S. Postal Service regarding its five-year strategic plan, on behalf of the Coalition for Postal Worksharing, suggesting that, as part of the Postal Service's long-term strategic planning, it should set a course aimed toward eliminating the current overcharging of workshared mail to the benefit of nonworkshared mail. |
|
|
Coalition for Postal Worksharing Final Comments to the President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service
|
July 9, 2003
|
|
| Our firm submitted final comments to the President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, on behalf of the Coalition for Postal Worksharing, urging the Commission to endorse worksharing and private sector competition by: (i) requiring the Postal Service to charge separate rates for workshared services that are sufficient to cover the cost of providing those services; and (ii) subjecting the Postal Service to the laws that govern competition in the private sector. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooperative Mail Rule Comments
|
June 5, 2003
|
|
| Our firm submitted comments on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition relating to the Postal Service's proposed changes in the Cooperative Mail Rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEC Enforcement Procedures
|
May 30, 2003
|
|
| Our firm submitted comments on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund relating to proposed changes to Federal Election Commission enforcement procedures. |
|
|
|
|
FEC Challenge — Notice of Appeal
|
May 7, 2003
|
|
| On May 2, 2003 the three-judge district court handed down its decision in Paul v. FEC. Today we filed our Notice of Appeal. |
|
|
John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. State of Texas
|
February 18, 2003
|
|
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Help and Caring Ministries, Inc., and Citizens United Foundation in support of the State of Texas urging the Court to uphold the the Texas Homosexual Conduct Statute.
Petitioners challenging the Texas law ask the Court, in effect, to amend the U.S. Constitution to create a new constitutional right for adults to engage in consentual sodomy. Our brief defends principles of federalism, and explains how petitioners' arguments were misleading and flawed, and their position has no support in either the text of the 14th Amendment, or prior decisions of the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Free Speech Coalition Comments to the President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service
|
February 12, 2003
|
|
| Our firm submitted comments to the President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc., addressing (i) the Postal Service's belief that it is the final authority with respect to most of its administrative decisions, refusing to have those decisions reviewed by anyone, even by a federal court, and (ii) the danger of granting governmental powers to an agency that is not under the authority of the President of the United States. |
|
|
|
|
Federal Election Commission v. Christine Beaumont, et al.
|
February 10, 2003
|
|
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners of America, Inc., English First, and U.S. Justice Foundation in support of respondents Christine Beaumont, et al. urging the Court to affirm the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA's) ban on contributions by certain incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups in federal elections as unconstitutional.
Our brief itemizes the numerous FEC-created exceptions to the statutory ban on corporate contributions, supports the extension of the Supreme Court's rule in Massachusetts Citizens for Life case dealing with independent expenditures to contributions, and explains how this provision of the FECA violates the freedom of the press. |
|
| Statement Presented on Charitable Solicitation to New York State Senate
|
January 30, 2003
|
|
| On January 30, 2003, Bill Olson presented a statement on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition to the Committee on Consumer Protection of the New York State Senate. The Senate Committee had sought input on the "public disclosure of charities rates of donor retention and use, industry regulation and the adequacy of current laws pertaining to charitable telemarketing solicitation." |
|
|
James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc, et al.
|
January 23, 2003
|
|
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Target Advertising, Inc., Eberle Communications Group, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and Citizens United Foundation in support of respondents Telemarketing Associates, Inc., et al.
This brief urges the Court to reject the Illinois Attorney General's rule that nonprofits which do not make point of solicitation disclosure of the percentage of funds paid to professional fund raisers position are engaged in fraud. The brief explains how the Illinois Attorney General's litigation strategy of suing the fundraiser but not the nonprofit organization represents a transparent effort to end-run established First Amendment constitutional rights of nonprofit organizations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 © 2012 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.
|
|
|
|
