Wade v. Regents of the University of Michigan

admin Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Michigan Supreme Court

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the University of Michigan’s infringement on the Second Amendment rights of its students.  We explain why the university’s ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and various decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, including District of Columbia v. Heller.

Link to brief

Mai v. United States

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

Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision which allowed a ban on gun possession by a man who had suffered a mental health crisis as a minor, but who had since then been found by the State of Washington not to be a danger to himself or to others.  Nevertheless, as the Ninth Circuit has done in every Second Amendment challenge brought before Read More

Caniglia v. Strom

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

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a First Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms by police after a Petitioner husband and his wife had a non-violent, non-threatening argument.  Tired of arguing with his wife, the husband threw down an unloaded handgun and said something like “just shoot me.”  The next day the police showed Read More

Lange v. California

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed an amicus brief opposing warrantless home invasions by police officers in pursuit of fleeing misdemeanor suspects.  Both parties asked the court to reject a categorical approach that would allow such searches, but both favored a case-by-case rule that could allow such searches in some cases. To remain consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Fourth Amendment, we argued in favor of a categorical rule against such warrantless home invasions.

Link to brief

Texas v. Pennsylvania

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

Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC in support of Texas’ attempt to restore constitutional order to the selection of Presidential Electors. We explain how Texas and other states were harmed by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin when they allowed the circumvention of election procedures adopted by their state legislatures.

Link to brief

Texas v. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — Amicus Brief for U.S. Congressmen

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

Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’ original action against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin challenging their certification of Presidential Electors.

This brief was filed for U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson and a group of 106 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In this brief, these Members of the federal legislature seek to protect the constitutional powers of state legislatures to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors.

Link to brief

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

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

Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania seeking to challenge the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changing Pennsylvania election law at the last minute before the November elections.  We explained that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania state legislature to make these decisions with respect to federal elections, subject only to Congressional action.  We urge the Supreme Court to take the case to invalidate any ballots received after election day.

Link to brief

Laity v. Harris

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

Today our firm served as co-counsel to file an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Kamala Harris’s eligibility for the office of Vice President of the United States.  In our brief, we explain the meaning of the “natural born citizen” requirement set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, and discuss why Harris does not qualify.

Link to brief

Trump v. New York (Merits)

admin Constitutional Law, Statutory Construction, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed our second amicus brief in the case of Trump v. New York, on the merits, defending the discretion given by Congress to the President to conduct the census.  In our brief, we urge the court to reverse the district court’s decision which mandates that illegal aliens be counted in the apportionment basis for allocating seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

Link to brief

Amicus Brief: Trump v. New York

admin Constitutional Law, Statutory Construction, U. S. Supreme Court

Today our firm filed the only amicus brief (at least thus far) in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Trump v. New York, supporting President Trump’s Memorandum instructing the Secretary of Commerce to provide him with data necessary to reapportion the House of Representatives among the states without counting illegal aliens. The brief was filed for Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Read More

County of Los Angeles, et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Grace Community Church and Pastor John MacArthur)

admin California Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law

Today we filed an amicus brief in a California appellate count in support of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.  That Church began holding in-person, indoor services in late July despite a ban imposed on such services by Los Angeles County due to COVID-19.  The Church, inter alia, has asserted that the ban violates Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution Read More

Rhode v. Becerra

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

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a California law which requires background checks for persons seeking to buy ammunition. Our brief explained the history of how the 9th Circuit has employed various legal tests and other techniques to allow certain judges hostile to gun rights to evade application of the Second Amendment, as written.

Link to brief

Ehlert v. Settle: Petition for Review

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

Today we filed a petition for review in the Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts’ denial of a portion of our application for temporary injunction. Judge Yeatts issued a temporary injunction against the Virginia State Police to bar enforcement of one of the Northam gun bills barring 18 to 20 year old Virginians from purchasing handguns in private Read More

Liberty University Amicus Brief Opposes VA Gov. Northam COVID-19 Controls on Commonwealth

admin Constitutional Law, Health Law, Virginia Supreme Court

Since March, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has imposed a draconian set of rules and regulations on the People and businesses of Virginia, ostensibly to address the COVID-19 threat. Yet he has refused to call the Virginia General Assembly into session to get authority to impose controls. Under his theory, his power is virtually limitless, and could continue into next year, and beyond. Today we Read More

Brief: San Francisco v. Azar

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

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a series of district court decisions within the Ninth Circuit striking down a recent HHS regulation.  The regulation issued by the Trump Administration was designed to protect healthcare workers from being required to performing certain procedures, such as abortions, euthanasia, and sex change surgeries.

Link to brief

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