Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Court to review a decision of the Fourth Circuit which would strip the Second Amendment rights of Marylanders.
Price v. Chicago
Today we filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the City of Chicago’s buffer zone ordinance, which was designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. Our brief argued that the case should be decided as any other First Amendment case — and the First Amendment rules should not be bent because this case involves an abortion clinic. We discuss how the courts have allowed a separate abortion rights jurisprudence to have precedence over legal principles of general applicability. We also explain that the Chicago ordinance violates the often ignored First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
Trump v. IRAP; Trump v. Hawaii
Today we filed our sixth brief in support of the Trump Immigration Executive Orders. Three of those prior briefs were in the Ninth Circuit; one in the In the Fourth Circuit; and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, we set out four major arguments, on the critical issues which will be decided by the High Court..
First, we explain that as written and as applied the Establishment Clause
Article: Privacy advocates advise Supreme Court to protect phone location data under the 4th Amendment
This article in Tech Crunch discusses the brief we filed in the Supreme Court in the Carpenter case.
Carpenter v. United States
Today, we filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court on the merits, arguing that the government may not seize and search your cell phone’s cell site location information without a warrant. This brief follows two briefs that we filed on this same issue in United States v Graham, and one in United States v. Zodhiates.
Article: “Trump, Pro-Gun Groups Headed for SCOTUS Duel?”
Bloomberg BNA carried an article discussing the brief we filed in U.S. v. Robinson on July 24, 2017.
Article: “Court gets refresher course in who actually writes laws”
World Net Daily ran an article about our firm’s brief filed in Zarda v. Altitude Express. The article addressed the factual problem with the case that we raised, in that the Appellant’s brief admitted that Zarda, a homosexual, was not fired because he was homosexual, but because he “over-shared” his sexual orientation with customers. The article also focuses on our argument that the Courts have no business legislating from the bench.
Article: “Justice Dept. Bucks EEOC, Says Sexual Orientation Not Protected”
Bloomberg BNA carried an article about the briefs filed in the Zarda v Altitude Express case, including the brief we filed.
Article: “Amicus Groups Try to Sway Conn. Supreme Court in Sandy Hook Hearing”
This article in the Connecticut Law Tribune summarizes the GOA/GOF brief in the Soto v Bushmaster litigation in Connecticut.
Zarda v. Altitude Express
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sitting en banc, where we are opposing efforts by radical homosexuals to convince liberal judges in New York to re-write the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment.
Currently, the 1964 federal law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of “sex” and “race.”
United States v. Kettler
Today, we filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeremy Kettler. Mr. Kettler was convicted in federal district court of possessing a firearm noise suppressor that was not registered to him pursuant to the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).
In purchasing his suppressor, Mr. Kettler had relied on the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act which
In Re: Jackson Charitable Trust
This important case resolves an issue of Trust Law. It addresses the issue of the respective roles of Institutional Trustees and Individual
(Family) Trustees in making distributions when the Trust Instrument grants that authority to both. PNC bank refused to process the Jackson Family to make grants to conservative, pro-liberty, pro-free enterprise charities, on the theory that they were “political.”
United States v. Seerden
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in defense of a service member whose cell phone was searched and seized by the military in an unlawful manner. As we have in the Jones case, the Graham case, the Zodhiates case, and others we explain how the Fourth Amendment first and foremost protects property rights, not some vague “reasonable
United States v. Zodhiates
Today we filed a brief in the Second Circuit challenging the Government’s use of cell phone location information obtained from a cell phone provider in response to a grand jury subpoena. We explain that under the Jones and Jardines textual/historic analysis that the cell phone user has a protected privacy interest in these records.
Accordingly, under the Fourth Amendment, the Government must
Patriotic Veterans v. Hill
Today, SCOTUSBlog named Patriotic Veterans v. Hill its Petition of the Day — a case in which we are co-counsel. This Petition is scheduled for the Court’s conference on June 22, 2017.
Southwest Prophecy Ministries Podcast — Bill Olson Interviewed about Pending Cases
Bill Olson was interviewed by David Schnittger of Southwest Prophecy Ministry about briefs filed by the firm in recent cases.
Southwest Prophecy Ministries Podcast — Bill Olson Interviewed About Biblical Grid Website
Our firm’s new website www.biblicalgrid.com is discussed by Bill Olson in this interview with David Schnittger of Southwest Prophecy Ministries. Our BiblicalGrid website was launched on May 15 as a compendium of Christian and pro-liberty websites, as well as others which regularly report on important matters.
Trump v. IRAP
Today we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court an amicus brief supporting President Trump’s challenge to the Fourth Circuit decision which approved a Maryland judge’s injunction against his Executive Order. Our brief supports both President Trump’s application to stay this injunction, and supports his petition for certiorari. The brief addressed three broad points.
First, we explain
Patriotic Veterans v. Curtis Hill, Attorney General of Indiana — Reply Brief for the Petitioner
Today, we filed our reply brief, responding to the arguments made by the
Indiana government’ opposition to our petition for certiorari.
Soto v. Bushmaster
Today, May 30, 2017, we filed an amicus brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in support of gun manufacturers Bushmaster and Remington, who had been sued by the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims.
The plaintiffs in the case had brought a “negligent entrustment” claim, arguing that the AR-15 style rifle should never have been sold because it was foreseeable that it would be used
EEOC v. Harris Funeral Home
Today we filed a brief in the Sixth Circuit supporting a Christian Funeral Home in a suit by the EEOC on behalf of a man employed by that funeral home who would like to dress in women’s clothing for one year as he “transitions.” The EEOC made the naked assertion that the claim for this employee was supported by the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but failed
G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board
Today we filed our third amicus brief defending the Gloucester County School Board against an ACLU challenge on behalf of a girl who would like to be a boy. The prior litigation involved the Obama Administration’s directives to the School Board to open the boys room and boys locker and shower facilities to Gavin Grimm. However, President Trump rescinded those guidance letters. Therefore,
Article: “Judicial Imperialism vs. America: Report from The Immigration Front”
Today, www.VDARE.com ran our article giving our lengthy overview of the litigation around the country against the Trump Executive Orders on Immigration.