Today, our firm file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit following its grant of a petition for rehearing en banc to reconsider President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. Our brief argued that the Civil Service Reform Act did not bar the lawsuit as the Fifth Circuit panel had previously ruled. Also, our brief argued that President Biden lacked the authority to issue
Cargill v. Garland — Supplemental Amicus Brief on Rehearing En Banc
Today, our firm file a supplemental amicus brief for the Fifth Circuit’s rehearing en banc of a challenge to the ATF’s bump stock rule. (We previously file an amicus brief in support of the petition for rehearing en banc.) Our brief argued that the bump stock rule was politically motivated and that bump
Texas v. United States — DACA appeal
Today, we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Texas and other states against Obama’s DACA policy. Our brief explained that the Texas states have standing to bring this challenge to DACA. Further, our brief argued that DACA presents several constitutional violations, including the separation of the powers as it is an exercise of legislative power, and that it violates
Cargill v. Garland — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc in a case challenging the bump stock ban. Our brief explained that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun, and that only Congress has the power to amend the text of statutes. Finally, we explained that the district court’s and the court of appeals panel’s conclusions contradicted
State of Texas v. United States
Today our firm filed our ninth amicus brief opposing Obamacare. This briefs supports challenge to Obamacare brought by the State of Texas and other states based on the fact it is unconstitutional since the penalty for the individual mandate was zeroed out by Congress in December 2017. Earlier, we filed the only amicus brief supporting the Texas challenge in district court in Texas. This brief
Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting efforts by the State of Texas to outlaw unbelievably cruel and barbaric dismemberment abortions.
Hollis v. Lynch — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the federal machine gun ban, ironically passed as part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
Under the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), “persons” are generally prohibited from possessing machineguns. A “person” is defined to include entities such a
Texas v. United States — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the challenge by State of Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s misuse of “executive action” (“DAPA”) to implement provisions of the DREAM Act that Congress refused to enact.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation,
U.S. v. Ramos/Compean Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for Rehearing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
We filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of two former Border Patrol agents’ Petitions for Rehearing. This brief emphasized areas where the Fifth Circuit panel’s decision was inconsistent with the law as set forth in our earlier brief filed with the court on May 25, 2007.
Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Congressmen Walter B. Jones (R-NC),
Ramos/Compean Amicus Oral Argument
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in the Ramos/Compean appeal. Our local counsel, Mark Brewer, was in attendance and sat at counsel table with the attorneys for appellants Ramos and Compean.
The three-judge panel consisted of Judges E.
U.S. v. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean Amicus Brief for Congressman Walter Jones, et al. 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)
Today we filed a Brief Amicus Curiae in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting the appeal of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. Counts four and five of the indictment charge the two with “Discharge of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence,” under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c), which the Supreme Court has ruled is only a sentencing factor, not one of the three elements