Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District amicus brief at the Sixth Circuit. In this case, a school district is censoring the free speech rights of students by banning the use of pronouns reflective of the biological sex of another student and compelling the use of other students’ preferred pronouns.
Law Matters — Episode 12
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discus the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act and our Amicus brief in Hotze v. U.S. Department of Treasury.
Hotze v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 12
Law Matters — Episode 10
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our Amicus brief in U.S. v Trump, the “classified documents” case before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, exploring the legitimacy of the Department of Justice’s appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel under the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.”
United States v. Trump — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 10
Mahmoud v. Taylor — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 9
Cooper v. United States — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 8
Louisiana v. Dept. of Education — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit supporting a challenge brought by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho to the U.S. Department of Education’s April 29, 2024 Final Rule. That Rule expanded the meaning of the Title IX ban on discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the Rule destroys personal privacy for women and girls; destroys women’s and girls’ sports; and censors the free speech rights of teachers and students. We argue that the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision should neither control nor inform a decision in this case. Finally, we point out that the DOE Rule presupposes that biological sex is not an immutable reality, but rather a social construct, changeable at will.
Link to brief
Link to prior Title IX amicus brief, Tennessee v. Cardona
Kennedy v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today’s amicus brief was filed in the 5th Circuit supporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense in their fight against the Government’s Censorship Enterprise. The Government interprets the Supreme Court’s recent Murthy v. Missouri decision to make it impossible for Americans whose voices have been secretly throttled or even extinguished by the Government to get their day in court. We explain why the Kennedy Plaintiffs have standing under Murthy. Government promises to behave cannot be trusted. Future offenses can be expected that should be enjoined, as the same FBI which censored stories about the Hunter Biden laptop to elect Biden-Harris can be expected to do so again to try to elect Harris-Waltz. We call out how the Government’s ongoing censorship, backed by threats, of social media platforms, which they euphemistically described as “content moderation.”
Link to brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 7
United States v. Idaho — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief to oppose the Biden Administrations effort to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to undermine Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act.” We argue that the Biden Administration has been exceedingly hostile to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and is working to circumvent it. The HHS Secretary had no statutory authority to issue the guidance documents to require elective abortions to be performed. We argue that the guidance documents constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ police power and exceeds federal spending power.
Link to brief
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.
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 5
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
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.