Law Matters — Episode 15

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law, Election Law

Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S Supreme Court amicus brief in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case challenging Illinois’ “Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute,” which purports to extend “election day” by allowing state election officials to continue receiving and counting absentee ballots for up to 14 days after the polls officially close.

Link to Podcast

Law Matters — Episode 13

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law

Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District  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.

Link to podcast

Louisiana v. Dept. of Education — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

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

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

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