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 11
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief in Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. (MSI) v. Moore, a Second Amendment case.
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
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 11
Law Matters — Episode 9
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our recent amicus brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the First Amendment’s “establishment of religion” and “free exercise” clauses.
Law Matters — Episode 8
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discus the “stop and frisk” doctrine and our Supreme Court of the United States amicus brief in Cooper v. United States.
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
DeKalb County Republican Party v. Raffensperger — Supplemental Amicus Brief
Alarmed at the Secretary of State’s argument at the hearing that he has no continuing duty to ensure that the election equipment remains in compliance with the USEAC and VVSG standards, we filed a supplemental amicus brief arguing that the Georgia Constitution and statutes do impose a continuing requirement on the Secretary to ensure that elections are lawfully conducted.
Law Matters — Episode 7
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss “standing” and our Amicus brief in the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. v. Biden case at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
Snope v. Brown — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision approving Maryland’s 2013 ban on “assault weapons.” The banned firearms are ordinary semi-automatic weapons and most are “commonly used,” if not ubiquitous among the gun-owning public, except where banned by a few states. We argue that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was really an attempt to circumvent Bruen. We argue “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct” in possessing such a weapon. Our brief shows that the “plain text” of the Second Amendment presumptively protects bearable firearms and Maryland could provide no relevant historical analogues.
Link to brief
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
Law Matters — Episode 6
In Episode 6, we discuss our 11th Circuit amicus brief in Doe v Ladapo, supporting Florida’s “Let Kids Be Kids” law protecting children from harmful puberty blockers, hormone-altering drugs, and mutilating surgeries.
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