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
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)
Fifth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection Component)
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.
World Net Daily covered our open letter to state officials in four states in Obergefell case urging them to file Petition for Rehearing.
National Law Journal/Supreme Court Brief Publishes Article Discusing Our Article on Obergefell Recusal (June 25, 2015)
U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Tony Mauro wrote about our article explaining the impropriety of failing to recuse in the Obergefell organization. The
Article was entitled "Motion Urging Recusal in Marriage Cases Surfaces on Supreme Court Docket."
"The recusal request was posted on the court's docket last week, according to William Olson and Herbert Titus, lawyers for the U.S. Justice
Foundation, which filed a brief against same-sex marriage in a related case. They wrote about the recusal motion on the foundation's
June 19. Olson said the justices should recuse in part because, after officiating at same-sex ceremonies, they would be biased to vote in favor of
such marriages so as not to tarnish their personal and professional reputations.
"The recusal request was first filed as a motion to the full court on April 27, the day before Obergefell v. Hodges and related cases were argued.
Olson and Titus questioned why the filing was posted so late and why it was converted from a motion to a request.
"These points may appear to be minor-words that only lawyers would quibble over," they state in their column. "But in reality, they suggest that
the high court, for an inordinate time, has ignored the recusal motion. While the court has finally acknowledged that some recusal filing was made,
it certainly gives no assurance that any ruling on the motion will be forthcoming before the court decides the same-sex marriage case."
Bob Unruh discusses the legal issues involved in our Petition for Certiorari: "They argued a law requiring the secretary of state to
put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot would be unconstitutional. But the California judges shrugged, more or less
said "So what?" and dismissed the case."
SCOTUSblog published a preview of the oral argument in Rodriguez v. United States, and discussed our amicus brief:
"One amicus brief was filed in support of each side. While the parties avoid the question whether a dog sniff is a “search,” the U.S. Justice
Foundation argues in support of Rodriguez that the Jardines and Jones decisions should call Caballes into question on this point, and that a dog
sniff of one’s car should not be allowed without independent Fourth Amendment justification. Pitching a portion of its argument, apparently, at
common-law enthusiasts such as Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, this amicus brief cites political philosopher John Locke from 1690
(about property rights, not cars, of course)."
Today, in an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled "A Monetary Gadfly in an Age of Fiat Money," Seth Lipsky discusses the amicus briefs we filed
for GATA in the government's case against Bernard vonNotHaus.
"These matters were considered by Judge Voorhees, who has been presiding in the von NotHaus case. They were raised most pointedly in an amicus brief by
the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a charity that fights for a constitutional view of money.
That brief argued that Congress lacks the power to prohibit private coinage of money. It argued that the Constitution’s grant of the coinage power to
Congress isn’t exclusive. If it were, the Constitution wouldn’t have had separately to deny coinage power to the states.
The fact that the Founders specifically denied coinage power to the states but not to the people means, the line of argument suggests, that private
coinage ends up as a right reserved to the people. In fact, private coinage existed long into the 19th century, particularly, but not exclusively, in the West."
Bureau of National Affairs Criminal Law Reporter (June 17, 2014) Abramski v. United States
The BNA Criminal Law Reporter's article on the Abramski decision, "Straw Man for Lawful Firearm Purchaser Made Material False Statement on ATF Form," by Alisa Johnson,
used some of our comments on the decision:
William J. Olson, Vienna, Va., who also participated in amicus briefs, characterized “the essence of the majority opinion” as, “if the Supreme Court thinks that interpreting
federal law the way it is actually written would defeat Congress' intent, the court may usurp the legislative power to edit the statute to fulfill its true intent.”
Olson also accused Kagan of adopting a statutory meaning “that was fully consistent with her anti-gun ideology.”
Bob Unruh's article discusses the tragedy of the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Chris Hedges' petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of National Defense
Authorization Act of 2012. NDAA 2012 allows the U.S. military to arrest and detain, without charges, counsel, or trial, anyone thought by the government to be a threat
based on vague standards.
Attempting to deflect public wrath, those Republicans and Democrats in Congress who passed the law, and the Obama Administration which wanted it, have changed their public
position repeatedly as to how the law would apply to American citizens. Of course, when legislators want to make a law clear, they know how to do it. When they try to
make it murky, that too is on purpose.
By the morning after this article was posted, it generated 457 comments, showing the depth of the opposition to this terrible law.
The article mentions only the most recent of our amicus briefs challenging NDAA, but we actually filed three such briefs against this dangerous law.
4/16/12 we filed the only amicus brief in support of the injunction in U.S. District Court.
12/17/12 We filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
1/23/14 We filed a brief supporting the petition for certiorari in the U.S.
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.
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.
Herb Titus was quoted in the WND.com article "Judge to Feds on Citizen Detention: I Said No!" by Bob Unruh regarding the case of Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al., in which we filed an amicus brief.
This Washington Post blog article "Del. Marshall, again, urges McDonnell to sign detention bill" by Anita Kumar discusses the memorandum written by Herb Titus for Delegate Bob Marshall on H.B. 1160 A bill to Prevent Virginia from Aiding the U.S. Military in the Detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Delegate Bob Marshall sent this legal analysis of H.B. 1160 to Govenor Bob McDonnell.
Chuck Baldwin's editorial opinion "Obama Administration 'Rigging' US Census By Counting Illegal Aliens" discusses our amicus brief in the case of Louisiana v. John Bryson in the United States Supreme Court. Our amicus brief was filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 Census. Chuck Baldwin is one of the amici curiae.
Bill Olson Quoted and Heller v. District of Columbia Amicus Brief Discussed in The United States Law Week article "D.C. Handgun Registration Requirement, Ban on Assault Weapons, Big Magazines OK" (October 11, 2011)
Bill Olson was quoted in The United States Law Week article "D.C. Handgun Registration Requirement, Ban on Assault Weapons, Big Magazines OK" on October 11, 2011 by Bernard J. Pazanowski discussing the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller 2) and the amicus brief filed by our firm in this case for Gun Owners of America, et al.
The article appears below and is reproduced with permission from The United States Law Week, 80 USLW 449 (Oct. 11, 2011). Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bna.com>:
The amicus brief filed by our firm in United States v. Antoine Jones in the United States Supreme Court is discussed in the World Net Daily article "If you thought feds wanted to track you before, check out now" by Bob Unruh on June 28, 2011.
The amicus brief filed by our firm in United States v. Bernard von NotHaus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Statesville Division on behalf of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee is discussed in The New York Sun editorial "Von NotHaus’ Question" on June 1, 2011.
The amicus brief filed by our firm in Awad v. Ziriax in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is discussed in the Tulsa World article "Nonprofit groups say Islamic law ban protects women" on November 18, 2010.
The amicus brief filed by our firm in Awad v. Ziriax in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is discussed in the NewsOK.com article "Nonprofit groups file legal brief in Shariah law dispute" by Nolan Clay on November 18, 2010.
Herb Titus Quoted in The National Law Journal Article "Heller II: The Sequel" (October 25, 2010)
Herb Titus was quoted in the The National Law Journal article "Heller II: The Sequel" by Mike Scarcella regarding the Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II) case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Our firm filed an amicus brief in this case.
Bill Olson was quoted in the CNSNews.com article "Harry Reid Defends Vote to Confirm Kagan on Second Amendment Grounds" by Terence P. Jeffrey regarding his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee evaluating Elena Kagan's record on the Second Amendment.
Herb Titus was quoted in the NPR article "High Court Extends Gun Owners' Rights Nationwide" regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Our firm filed an amicus brief in this case.
Bill Olson was invited by the Minority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify as a witness at Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings as reported by the washingtonpost.com, "Kagan hearings witness list released."
Herb Titus was quoted in the World Net Daily article "Obamacare's control plan? 'Behavior modification'" regarding the recent executive order President Obama signed establishing the national prevention, health promotion, and public health council as saying "The council is designed to basically implement future policy that ultimately everything will be governed by federal authorities, from food to dietary supplements to vitamins."
In this video Al Korelin of Korelin Economics Report speaks with GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc.) Board of Directors at the Cambridge House Vancouver Resource Investment Conference about GATA's recently filed lawsuit.
On In an article "Is there any gold inside Fort Knox, the world's most secure vault?" the London Times discusses the firm's work for GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee) in using the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve's use of what it calls "gold swaps."
Bill Olson Guest on Conservative Roundtable TV Show (March 4, 2009)
On March 4, 2009, Bill Olson was a guest on Conservative Roundtable's Television show.
He discussed the Daniel Chapter One case, where our firm is assisting in the defense of a health-related ministry promoting herbal and alternative medical products from an attack by the FTC. Information about the FTC attack on this ministry.
World Net Daily ran a story entitled "Appeals Decision Awaited in Broken Gun Case: Man serving 30 months for loaning rifle that malfunctioned" on the Olofson case, which our firm is handling.
Olofson Case Covered on Lou Dobbs Tonight TV Show (February 18, 2009)
Herb Titus was a guest on the Lou Dobbs Tonight television show today, to discuss the Olofson case, which our firm is handling. He appeared with Len Savage who had been a witness for David Olofson at trial.
Olofson Case Oral Argument Highlighted by Lou Dobbs (January 22, 2009)
On January 22, 2009, Herb Titus presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in support of David Olofson's appeal from having been wrongfully convicted of transfering a machinegun. Lou Dobbs covered oral argument in the case. The CNN video can be viewed at http://youtu.be/rB237rfvHys
At the heart of the Olofson appeal, Titus contended, is that the Government pressed a wrongful definition of a machinegun in order to secure Olofson's conviction. According to the government's definition, Olofson's malfunctioning semiautomatic rifle functioned as a machinegun because it fired more than one shot at the single pull of a trigger, even though it jammed before the trigger was released or the ammunition in the magazine was exhausted. The government's position, Titus argued, is contrary to fact, contrary to law, and in conflict with Supreme Court Seventh Circuit precedent. Indeed, according to the briefs filed by the firm, Olofson's prosecutor adopted a definition of a machinegun inconsistent with prior ATF rulings and guidelines.
Today, in the lead story in World Net Daily, Herb Titus discussed the constitutional obligation of the Electoral College to determine whether a candidate is constitutionally-eligible to be President, there being concerns raised as to whether Barak Obama is a "natural born Citizen."
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Watson Amicus Brief Discussed in Book by Former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts (March 25, 2008)
The amicus curiae brief which we filed for Congressman Walter Jones, Congressman Virgil Goode, Congressman Ted Poe, Gun Owners Foundation, and U.S. Border Control Foundation was featured in a report on the Ramos and Compean case on the Lou Dobbs Show on CNN today. View this segment below.
Bill Olson was quoted in an article in Broadcasting & Cable on proposed Federal Election Commission Regulations relating to electioneering ads in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life II.
An Associated Press article discussed the case now pending in the 10th Circuit in which we filed an amicus brief for Gun Owners' Foundation on behalf of the State of Wyoming. Herb Titus of our firm was interviewed for the article, and quoted as saying "the Wyoming case is significant because the issue of whether restoration of gun rights is defined by federal regulations or state law is pending in trial courts around the country."
Today Bill Olson was a guest on the Glen Beck Program on CNN Headline News to discuss the amicus brief filed in the Ramos/Compean case, and how the brief explains that Ramos and Compean were charged with, tried for, and convicted of a federal crime that does not exist.
Herb Titus was interviewed on the MyTechnologyLawyer Radio Show by Scott Draughon regarding the Amicus Brief our firm filed in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. You can listen to the interview by clicking on the link above and finding the August 22, 2007 show.
Today Bill Olson was quoted in an article in the Washington Times commenting on a lawsuit based on "public nuisance" law filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer against General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
The Cato Institute study co-authored by Bill Olson, "Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to 'Run the Country' by Usurping Legislative Power," was referenced in a presentation celebrating Constitution Day at Truman State University.
Herb Titus was quoted in USA Today in an article discussing the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of oral argument in two Ten Commandments cases. "Court Enters Debate over Display of Commandments" by Joan Biskupic.
The February 14, 2005 issue of the Business Mailer's Review contains an article about a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holding that prison inmates have a right to receive bulk mail that they had requested. This article also discusses the observations of Bill Olson, FSC Legal Co-Counsel, as to the possible application of the principle established in this case to State Charitable Solicitation Laws. If prisoners can receive mail without government approval, perhaps someday citizens can receive mail from nonprofits without the sender being approved by the states. Business Mailer's Review subscription information can be found at http://www.businessmailersreview.com.
A Washington Times article quoted Bill Olson regarding his disappointment of the Bush administration's defense in the Supreme Court of President Clinton's proclamation restricting access to seven national monuments and millions of acres of public land.
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.
Bill Olson's service as Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation was mentioned in a book by Lee Cokorinos of the Institute for Democracy Studies, entitled The Assault on Diversity, Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003
The executive order study, co-authored by Bill Olson, was cited in the statement of Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Research Service, before the House Subcommittee on Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform, concerning H.R. 4187, The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002.
A Washington Times article quoted Bill Olson regarding the Census 2000 case, the Supreme Court's denial of our Petition for Certiorari, and how the battle to restrain the Census Bureau will continue in Congress.
Bill Olson was quoted today by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette describing how a letter circulated by the Free Speech Coalition stalled momentum for a bill requiring the disclosure of contributors to nonprofit organizations.
Bill Olson was quoted today on trafficworld.com discussing the Postal Service's new Postmaster General.
Bill Olson Appears on the O'Reilly Factor (August 9, 2000)
Today, Bill Olson was a guest of Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reiley Factor, Fox News) to discuss President Clinton's abuse of Executive Orders. He discussed the Separation of Powers issue, current states of national emergency, the Permanent Striker Replacement Executive Order (No. 12954), and the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument Proclamation (No. 6920 issued under the Antiquities Act of 1906).
Abusing Executive Orders, A Word from Congressman Zach Wamp (January 2000)
The Cato Institute study on executive orders, co-authored by Bill Olson, was quoted by Congressman Zach Wamp.
The Cato Institute study co-authored by Bill Olson, "Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to 'Run the Country' by Usurping Legislative Power," was quoted in this Enter Stage Right article "Congress Must Seize Back the Law-making Power."
Bill Olson and the study he co-authored, "Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to 'Run the Country' by Usurping Legislative Power," were mentioned in this Insight on the News article.
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.