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
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.
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
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.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief explaining why the Equal Rights Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1972, is no longer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the Virginia General Assembly’s resolution of ratification was null and void.
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.
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,
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
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.
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.)
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).
The Richmond Times Dispatch covered our petition for review in the Virginia Supreme Court to challenge the Richmond Circuit Court’s refusal to enjoin Governor Northam’s Capitol Grounds gun ban.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Today, Bill Olson and Herb Titus co-authored a paper explaining the serious dangers associated with the calling of an Article V Constitutional Convention. The paper addressed two false premises underlying the proposal: 1. The problem of big government is found in the text of the U.S. Constitution, which can be corrected by changing the words of the document. 2. The only remedy to the problem of
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief challenging the City of Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance, designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. As we did in our first brief in the Seventh Circuit, we argue here that this case should be handled not as an abortion rights case, but
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine its Terry v. Ohio, stop-and-frisk doctrine. Although Terry stop and frisks were limited to a search for weapons, in this case one was used to justify seizing a bullet. Since that decision in 1968, both Fourth and Second Amendment law has changed. The property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been re-established, and the
Today the Supreme Court issued an order in a case in which we had filed an amicus brief — Commissioner v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, referencing both our amicus brief (at 18) and several of the authorities that we cited in our
Today we filed our second amicus brief in support of a challenge to New York City’s near prohibition on transporting firearms. This is the first Second Amendment case that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Our brief details the lower courts’ open prejudice against gun rights and its disregard for the Supreme Court’s protection of Second
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