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
Doe v. Ladapo — Amicus Brief
The district court invalidated a Florida statute designed to protect minors from the current fad of transgenderism, for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Our amicus brief rejected the district court’s assumption that a law based on transgender status was equivalent to racism. We also showed that the district court erroneously relied on medical “standards” recommended by an
Tennessee v. Cardona — Amicus Brief
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule which directed that under Title IX, discrimination ” on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the DOE Rule does not implement, but rather undermines Title IX. The Rule destroys
Crouch v. Anderson — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief filed today urges the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision ordering West Virginia Medicaid to pay for gender transition procedures. The opinion was based on modern transgender ideology, finding no difference between removal of cancerous tissue and removing healthy body parts. The Fourth Circuit based its decision on that court’s Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board case — a case in which our firm filed four amicus briefs to prevent a girl from accessing the boys restroom. Now that seemingly innocuous (and erroneous) precedent is being badly misused.
The circuit court relied on Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), but in recent months, an abundance of evidence has surfaced that WPATH is an advocacy group, not an independent medical organization. Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery. There was no justification to expand the Equal Protection Clause to require dangerous and irreversible procedures to make persons suffering a type of mental disorder feel better about themselves.
Link to brief
West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by the State of West Virginia, to protect its law protecting girls in girls’ sports from unfair and potentially dangerous competition from biological males. Men have an unfair physical advantage over girls for many reasons, and allowing them to compete against girls deprives girls of the ability to develop their own abilities and be recognized for their achievements. The Fourth Circuit, over a strong and thoughtful dissent, sacrificed girls’ sports on the altar of transgenderism. The division in sports between girls and boys has been well established and is unquestionably legal and constitutional. The Grimm decision allowing a girl to use the boys’ restroom, on which the Fourth Circuit relied, is no precedent whatsoever for compelling a school to allow boy to compete against girls in girls’ sports. Moreover, Grimm was based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), an organization has been exposed as having been a political player in the transgender wars, not a neutral medical organization focused on actual health issues. WPATH has tailored its standards to facilitate wins in court. Even if a court believes a specific transgender person could benefit from some policy, that does not provide the judiciary the authority to override the state legislature and impose that policy on a state. No court has the right to compel the rest of the country to sacrifice their liberty to satisfy those who wish to participate in what is, at base, an ancient Pagan practice, dangerous to all concerned.
Little v. Hecox — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces
New York v. Trump — Amicus Brief
Today, working with Steven J. Harfenist of Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein, LLP, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of President Trump’s appeal of New York’s fraud case against him and others connected to the Trump Organization. Our brief argued that New York’s law does not authorize the Attorney General to seek the equitable remedy of disgorgement where there is no harm
Rhode v. Bonta — Amicus Brief in Second Appeal
Today, our firm filed our third amicus brief in the case challenging California’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases — our first amicus brief was filed in the prior appeal well before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and the second
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus brief on remand
Today, our firm filed a second brief in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), this time on remand from the Supreme Court after it issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi. Our brief argued that Rahimi did not change the Bruen test that the Fifth Circuit had previously applied, and thus Rahimi would not change the outcome previously reached by the Fifth Circuit.
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a coalition of parents of schoolchildren in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The parents are challenging a policy of the school district to assist children with sexual transitioning without telling the parents of those children. The lower courts dismissed the claims, concluding that the parents did not have standing to
Fouts v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of a challenge to California’s ban on billy clubs. Applying Bruen, our brief explained that billy clubs are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Even if historical analogues were review, California failed to provide any relevant precedent for its ban on sticks.
Nguyen v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, supporting a challenge to California’s law limiting firearm purchases to one per month. Our brief demonstrated that California’s law violates the Second Amendment by applying Bruen’s text and history test. The acquisition of firearms is clearly protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the California
VCDL v. Roanoke — Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Injunction
Today, our firm with other Virginia co-counsel filed a Reply Brief in support of our Motion for a Temporary Injunction against the City of Roanoke’s ban on carry of firearms in public parks.
Antonyuk v. James — Reply Brief
Today, we filed a reply brief in support of our Petition for Writ of Certiorari, responding to New York’s arguments defending its Concealed Carry Improvement Act.
Gun Owners of America v. Raoul — Reply Brief
Our reply brief responds to arguments made by the Illinois respondents, urging the Supreme Court to grant our Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban.
Baird v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to California’s near-complete ban on open carry of firearms. Our brief exposed how the district court rewrote the issues of the case so that it could reach its own predetermined decision, criticized and then rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller and Bruen, and upheld yet another California law violating
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief for Maricopa County GOP
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to challenge election procedures used in Arizona in 2022. Our brief was filed for the Maricopa County Republican Committee, 10 other county GOP committees, the Nebraska and New Mexico State Republican Parties, and CLDEF. Our brief discussed how the courts have repeatedly found
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake, former candidate for governor of Arizona and current candidate for U.S. Senate. Lake filed suit against Arizona to require that it follow Arizona law to ensure the integrity of elections when using electronic voting machines. Our amicus brief supported the standing of Lake to bring the challenge,
Trump v. United States — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of the President having immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office. Our amicus brief explained that the Constitution provides for impeachment of the President, and there are other principles which support the immunity of the President. Allowing criminal prosecution results in specious charges such as the ones in this
U.S. v. Texas — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ SB4, which allows law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of unlawfully being in the United States and Texas. The Biden Administration filed suit against Texas seeking to have SB4 enjoined. Our amicus brief argued that Texas has the authority under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 and as a sovereign entity to defend itself and
Gun Owners of America v. Raoul — Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm, with Stephen Stamboulieh, Esquire, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, seeking review of the Seventh Circuit’s holding that the Illinois ban on so-called “assault weapons” does not violate the Second Amendment. Our petition explained how the Seventh Circuit resists the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment, instead creating a dichotomy between
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Maryland’s handgun license requirement. Our brief set out the history of the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment, and demonstrated that the permit requirement violates the Second Amendment as well as the Bruen test. Our brief concluded by providing examples of individuals
Moyle v. United States — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in support of Idaho’s law protecting the life of the unborn after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs in 2022 which reversed Roe v. Wade. The federal government sued Idaho, asserting that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment
U.S. v. Abbott — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas Governor Abbott’s installation of floating barriers on the Rio Grande. Our brief argued that Texas has the inherent power as a sovereign entity to defend its people against invasion across its borders. Our brief also demonstrated that Texas’ actions are consistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 as it is under an “actual
Antonyuk v. James — Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm, with Stephen Stamboulieh, Esquire, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision in upholding the New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act. Our petition seeks review of New York’s good moral character requirement as well as the expansion
Murthy v. Missouri — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the issue of government censorship committed by coercing Big Tech social media companies to do the censoring of protected speech. Our amicus brief presented additional arguments to support the respondents’ claims that they had standing to sue the federal agencies and to counter the government’s claims that the First Amendment protects its coercive