United States v. Michael Flynn

admin Constitutional Law, Litigation, U. S. District Court, District of Columbia

On behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, our firm filed an amicus brief supporting the dismissal of charges against General Michael Flynn. Our brief also opposes the court’s inquiry into bringing contempt and perjury charges against General Flynn. The case against General Flynn is currently pending in both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where we filed this brief, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where we earlier filed a brief for General Flynn.

Link to CU/CUF/TPC Amicus Brief
Link to Motion for Leave to File

In re: Michael Flynn

Jeremiah Morgan Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Today we filed an amicus brief for former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III supporting the dismissal of criminal charges against General Michael Flynn.  In our brief we argue that the Attorney General of the United States, not a federal district judge, has the primary responsibility for ensuring that criminal charges are brought only for violations of actual federal crimes.  In the Read More

State of New York v. Department of Health and Human Services

admin Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Health Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit defending President Trump’s and his Department of Health and Human Services’ effort to protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in abortions, sterilizations, and euthanasia. Our brief explains that Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs are still pursuing an Eugenics Agenda. Our brief explains how the Read More

Rodriguez v. City of San Jose

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review an inexplicable Ninth Circuit decision upholding an illegal search and seizure of firearms by the San Jose Police after her husband had a mental health crisis. Seven years after that seizure, the City of San Jose, California is still refusing to return her firearms to her. Even though Lori Rodriguez is not a disqualified person, more than seven years later, she is still fighting a court battle to recover those firearms, a battle which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link to brief

Lynchburg Range & Training v. Northam (Lynchburg Circuit Court, after remand from federal district court)

admin Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg, Virginia, Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Health Law

After remand of our case to Lynchburg Circuit Court, we filed a number of documents in state court on April 23, 2020, and on April 27, 2020, Judge Yeatts issued an injunction against Governor Northam, with an opinion letter.

Link to  Plaintiffs’ Read More

Lynchburg Range & Training v. Northam (Circuit Court Litigation)

admin Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg, Virginia, Firearms Law, Health Law, Litigation

Today our firm filed a complaint in Lynchburg (Virginia) Circuit Court to enjoin the provision Governor Northam’s Executive Order 53 which closed “indoor shooting ranges.”

Link to Complaint
Link to Exhibits
Link to Proposed Injunction Order
Link to Mitch Tyler Affidavit
Link to Philip Van Cleave Affidavit
Link to Erich Pratt Affidavit

Hughes v. Northam

admin Circuit Court of Russell County Virginia, Constitutional Law

On April 8, 2020, we learned that an individual had challenged Virginia Governor Northam’s Executive Order banning meetings — including Church Services — so that he could go to church on Easter without fear of being charged.  The case was filed in Virginia Circuit Court in Russell County, in far Southwest Virginia.  Since the petition included a claim under the First Amendment, Read More

FOIA Complaint — Public Advocate v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

admin FOIA Law, Litigation, U. S. District Court, District of Columbia

Today we filed a complaint against the CDC for their refusal to respond to our Freedom of Information Act request for copies of records related to the CDC’s 2014 “Acting Against AIDS” campaign.

Link to Complaint
Link to Exhibit A
Link to Exhibit B
Link to Exhibit C
Link to Exhibit D
Link to Exhibit E
Link to Exhibit F
Link to Exhibit G
Link to Exhibit H

Roberts & GOA v. U.S. Justice Department

admin Administrative Law, Firearms Law, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Today, with Kerry Morgan, Esquire of Wyandotte, Michigan, we filed suit on behalf of gun owners against the U.S. Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to challenge an unlawful action of ATF affecting Michigan gun owners.  On March 3, 2020, ATF issued a determination letter that directed Michigan FFLs to refuse to accept a concealed pistol license in lieu of a NICS background check from the FBI when buying a gun.  Federal law allows the use of such a license to purchase a firearm.   Our complaint can be found here.

Coral Ridge Ministries Media v. Amazon & Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

admin Constitutional Law, Nonprofit Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a complaint filed by Coral Ridge Ministries Media, which has been unfairly classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We explain in our brief that the SPLC defames organizations like Coral Ridge Ministries by adding them to a “hate map,” which is used Read More

Reply to Virginia’s Response in Opposition filed in Virginia Supreme Court on Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Litigation, Statutory Construction, Virginia Supreme Court

After we filed our Emergency Petition for Review last night, this morning at about 9:15 am, the Solicitor General of Virginia filed his Response in Opposition.  We filed our Reply to that Opposition about 1:00 pm.  The Virginia Supreme Court issued an Order denying our Petition for Review about 6:15 pm.

Emergency Petition for Review filed Against Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Litigation, Statutory Construction, Virginia Supreme Court

About 6:00 pm this evening, we filed in the Virginia Supreme Court an Emergency Petition for Review asking the Court to enjoin Governor Northam’s Executive Order banning firearms on the grounds of the Virginia Capitol, as unauthorized by law, in violation of law (Virginia Code section 44-146.15) , and unconstitutional.  (See next entry.)

Complaint & Application for Temporary Injunction Against Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Litigation, Richmond Circuit Court, Statutory Construction

About noon on Wednesday, January 15, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency in Virginia and issued Executive Order 49,  which temporarily bans the possession or carrying of firearms in Richmond on Lobby Day (Monday, January 20).  Today, Thursday, January 16, about noon, on behalf of Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League, and three individuals, our firm filed a Complaint and Application in the the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, seeking a temporary injunction against the Governor’s order.   In this case, we are working with David G. Browne, Esquire of Spiro and Browne,  in Richmond.  A hearing was held before Judge Joi Jeter Taylor from 1:30 to 2:30 pm.  Judge Taylor issued an Order denying our Application at 4:31 pm.  (This led to our filing an Emergency Petition for Review in the Virginia Supreme Court about 6:00 pm (see next entry).

National Association for Gun Rights v. Mangan

admin Constitutional Law, Election Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a petition for certiorari designed to challenge a 2015 Montana State election law.  The law regulated “electioneering communications” — borrowing a term which Congress had employed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to require reporting of a narrow category of broadcast advertisements Read More

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra & Thomas More v. Becerra

admin Constitutional Law, Nonprofit Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 22 organizations and fundraisers opposing a California requirement that nonprofits surrender the names of their large donors before soliciting contributions in that state. Now, we are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Ninth Circuit.This is the sixth brief we filed defending the right of nonprofits to withhold IRS Form 990 Schedules B, protecting the anonymity of their donors. In our brief, we address four issues —why such disclosure demands are unconstitutional for four reasons:  freedom of association under NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Alabama; blanket restrictions of  charitable solicitation under Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates; breach of anonymity under Watchtower v. Village of Stratton and Talley v. California; and lastly, because in addition to retaliation by the public, government officials could retaliate against those donors funding nonprofits working to oppose government policies.

Link to brief

Duncan v. Becerra

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to a California law limiting the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds.  We explain that the two-step test used by the lower federal courts undermines the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald.  And we explain that weapons useful in military service are exactly the type of weapons covered by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller and Heller.

Link to brief

Jewel v. NSA

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Today our firm filed its second amicus brief in a challenge to the most sweeping Fourth Amendment violations ever committed by the U.S. government.  (Our last brief was filed over four years ago.)  This suit seeks to stop three different mass surveillance programs operated by the federal government — programs which have seized Internet (email, internet searches, etc.) and telephone communications Read More

Remington Arms v. Soto

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed our second amicus brief in the defense of a firearms manufacturer who was sued in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook shooting. Our prior brief was in the Connecticut Supreme Court. This brief supports the manufacturer’s effort to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the plaintiffs’ theories were rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but it allowed the case to proceed based on advertising that supposedly would have appealed to young males to conduct shootings. Our brief explains why the Connecticut Court erred in its creation of a huge exception to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a statute designed specifically to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from suits such as this one.

Link to brief

DHS v. Regents of the University of California

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we file our fourth amicus brief in support of President Trump’s authority to rescind President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA policy. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to review the lower court orders which have prevented President Trump from changing policy, and we address the issues in our merits amicus brief. We explain why the decision to end DACA was not judicially reviewable, and that DACA itself was unlawful. Our prior briefs were filed February 2, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court, March 14, 2018 in the Second Circuit, and December 6, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link to brief

Bostock v. Clayton County & Altitude Express v. Zarda

admin Statutory Construction, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of Altitude Express from a case brought by a homosexual skydiving instructor who was fired for speaking inappropriately at work about his sexual orientation. The Altitude Express case has been consolidated with a case from the Eleventh Circuit — Bostock. As in the Harris Funeral Case, we explain that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Ac does not apply to sexual orientation.

Link to brief