Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to help defend a decision of the district court of Hawaii striking down two state restrictions on firearms purchase. Hawaii law requires that even after obtaining a permit to purchase a specific handgun, the permit expired after 10 days, and then the firearm must be physically carried to a police station for inspection.
In Heltzel, a group of plaintiffs are challenging the removal by former Governor Ralph Northam of the Robert E. Lee Monument, which had stood in Richmond for 120 years. The Heltzel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court which sanctioned that removal. Today, our firm filed the only amicus brief in support of the Lee Monument and against
In Jewel, a group of plaintiffs are seeking a federal injunction against the widespread, warrantless surveillance of communications involving Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). The case has been litigated for over a decade, most recently with the Ninth Circuit denying relief in a dismissive, one-page opinion. The Jewel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to
Today, we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Texas and other states against Obama’s DACA policy. Our brief explained that the Texas states have standing to bring this challenge to DACA. Further, our brief argued that DACA presents several constitutional violations, including the separation of the powers as it is an exercise of legislative power, and that it violates
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc in a case challenging the bump stock ban. Our brief explained that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun, and that only Congress has the power to amend the text of statutes. Finally, we explained that the district court’s and the court of appeals panel’s conclusions contradicted
Today, we filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Governor Youngkin’s Executive Directive No. 2. The Supplemental Memorandum is in support of the Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief for Kaycee McCoy regarding the University of Virginia Health System’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
We are serving as co-counsel to Mike Lindell in a challenge to a subpoena issued by the January 6 House Select Committee for his phone records, where a complaint was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Coral Ridge Ministries. In the courts below (where we filed an amicus brief), Coral Ridge’s defamation complaint against SPLC was dismissed under the Supreme Court’s decision
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support applications of stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate and a petition for certiorari before judgment. Numerous parties sought court review and a stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate after it was issued on November 5, 2021. After the Sixth Circuit allowed the mandate to take effect, requests for stay were sought in the Supreme Court as well as petitions for
Today, we filed a Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief for Kaycee McCoy (see complaint here). After a hearing on the request for a temporary injunction, the Circuit Court requested additional briefing on the temporary injunction factors.
The Memorandum argued that the freedom of religion recognized in Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution creates a jurisdictional barrier to the
Today, we filed a Complaint against the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia Health System on behalf of a university employee who was refused her religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and was notified that she would be terminated. The Complaint as well as the accompanying Application for a Temporary Injunction claim that
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari filed by small business owner who provides website design services. She would like to begin offering custom wedding websites, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (the same law used against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece
Today, Rob Olson presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc in our continuing litigation against ATF’s bump stock regulation issued in December 2018. The Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc after a three-judge panel ruled against the bump stock ban earlier this year. Audio of the oral argument is available.
Today, our firm filed its third amicus brief in the Jewel litigation, this time in support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Ninth Circuit. A panel of the Ninth Circuit once again ruled in support of the federal government, holding that the Jewel plaintiffs had failed to set forth sufficient evidence to establish standing and also affirming the district court’s exclusion of such
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of certain Muslims in Los Angeles who were surveilled electronically and otherwise by the FBI and a confidential informant. The FBI has asserted the state secrets doctrine to seek dismissal of most claims, including a FISA claim under which the district court could conduct an ex parte in camera review of the surveillance to determine if there were
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.
Today, as ordered by the Sixth Circuit, we filed a Supplemental Brief on the issue of Standing in our challenge to ATF’s revocation of the rights of licensed Michigan gun owners to purchase firearms without a NICS check.
Today we filed a brief for CLDEF in support of the effort by Mississippi to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) and in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). We argued that Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence in no way was based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, but rather the personal preferences of the justices. Our brief exposed three major flaws in Roe: 1. Roe relied on misrepresentations about how common law viewed abortion; 2. Roe made flawed assumptions understating the maternal risk from abortion; and 3. Roe erroneously assumed state anti-abortion laws were not written to defend the life of the preborn. Lastly, we urged the Court to end its historical embrace of eugenics.
Today we filed a brief for Intercessors for America in support of the effort by Mississippi to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) and in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). We argued that the Court erred in establishing “viability” as the touchstone for its abortion decisions. We also explained how Justice Blackmun based his decision on a Pagan foundation. We cited many Supreme Court sources to demonstrate that the Court increasingly does what it wants to do, regardless of what the Constitution states. We review how the Court’s jurisprudence in areas such as the Establishment Clause and government schools has established paganism as our nation’s religion. Lastly, we explain that this Court’s abortion cases have brought bloodguilt upon the land and opened the nation to God’s righteous temporal judgments.