Law Matters — Episode 48
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in DSCC v. Trump, a challenge brought by Democrat organizations and politicians to President Trump’s March 31, 2026
Law Matters — Episode 45
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Weber and U.S. v. Oregon, regarding election integrity and the federal government’s role in overseeing the upkeep and maintenance
U.S. v. Oregon, U.S. v. Weber — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 45
Watson v. RNC — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 39
Law Matters — Episode 15
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.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 15
DeKalb County Republican Party v. Raffensperger — Supplemental Amicus Brief
“The Trace” Commentary on GOALS Summit in Knoxville
“The Trace,” a website describing itself as “the only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence,” covered the recent Gun Owners Advocacy and Leadership Summit in Knoxville. The story stated:
“Many at the summit saw Harris as a threat to the continued vitality of that deterrent, not least because of her perceived determination to confiscate guns. Rallying gun
Lake v. Hobbs — Amicus Brief in support of motion to recall mandate
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of Arizona candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem’s motion to recall the mandate for fraud on the court. Our amicus brief discussed the key role the judiciary plays in protecting free and fair elections. When an elected official in charge of supervising elections is then a candidate in another election, the courts must take a particularly
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. Anderson — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief opposing an effort to remove President Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado. The challengers claim that Trump engaged in “insurrection” and thus is ineligible to be President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, in a 4-3 decision. Our amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide only the
Lake v. Hobbs — Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for Review
Today, David Hardy of Tucson, Arizona, filed an amicus brief, that our firm prepared with him, in support of Kari Lake’s Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Our amicus brief argued that the Lake only needed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, not by the clear and convincing standard applied by the courts below. Furthermore,
Moore v. Harper — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief for America’s Future in the U.S. Supreme Court which is considering whether state courts may usurp the constitutional role of state legislatures to set the “Times, Places and Manner” for holding Congressional elections under Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1. Our brief answered that question in the negative, arguing that the U.S. Constitution assigns
Ammoland: John Crump on FEC Dismissal of Complaint Against Facebook and Kamala Harris
In this article, John Crump explained the story of the FEC’s denial of the complaint our firm filed for him and Gun Owners of America. That complaint asked the FEC to act against Facebook for its suppression of the anti-gun record of Kamala Harris during the 2020 campaign.
Article: Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania
With Pat McSweeney, Bill Olson wrote this article in Western Journal suggesting a way to circumvent the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Texas’ original action challenging the changes in election law unconstitutionally imposed by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court.
Texas v. Pennsylvania
Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC in support of Texas’ attempt to restore constitutional order to the selection of Presidential Electors. We explain how Texas and other states were harmed by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin when they allowed the circumvention of election procedures adopted by their state legislatures.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — Amicus Brief for U.S. Congressmen
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’ original action against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin challenging their certification of Presidential Electors.
This brief was filed for U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson and a group of 126 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In this brief, these Members of the federal legislature seek to protect the constitutional powers of state legislatures to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors.
