FSC/FSDEF Comments Filed with Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
The Committee is considering a proposed amendment to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) Rule 29, which would make it more difficult for interested parties to file amicus briefs. In our comments, signed by 26 non-profit organizations, we argue that federal judges and the federal rules are not above the Constitution, and the proposed rules would violate amici’s First Amendment rights
Law Matters — Episode 16
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, supporting Texas’ age verification law to protect children from explicit material on pornographic websites.
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 13
Law Matters — Episode 13
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District amicus brief 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.
Law Matters — Episode 12
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
Mahmoud v. Taylor — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 9
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.
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
West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by the State of West Virginia, to protect its law protecting girls in girls’ sports from unfair and potentially dangerous competition from biological males. Men have an unfair physical advantage over girls for many reasons, and allowing them to compete against girls deprives girls of the ability to develop their own abilities and be recognized for their achievements. The Fourth Circuit, over a strong and thoughtful dissent, sacrificed girls’ sports on the altar of transgenderism. The division in sports between girls and boys has been well established and is unquestionably legal and constitutional. The Grimm decision allowing a girl to use the boys’ restroom, on which the Fourth Circuit relied, is no precedent whatsoever for compelling a school to allow boy to compete against girls in girls’ sports. Moreover, Grimm was based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), an organization has been exposed as having been a political player in the transgender wars, not a neutral medical organization focused on actual health issues. WPATH has tailored its standards to facilitate wins in court. Even if a court believes a specific transgender person could benefit from some policy, that does not provide the judiciary the authority to override the state legislature and impose that policy on a state. No court has the right to compel the rest of the country to sacrifice their liberty to satisfy those who wish to participate in what is, at base, an ancient Pagan practice, dangerous to all concerned.
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 5
Little v. Hecox — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a coalition of parents of schoolchildren in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The parents are challenging a policy of the school district to assist children with sexual transitioning without telling the parents of those children. The lower courts dismissed the claims, concluding that the parents did not have standing to
Murthy v. Missouri — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the issue of government censorship committed by coercing Big Tech social media companies to do the censoring of protected speech. Our amicus brief presented additional arguments to support the respondents’ claims that they had standing to sue the federal agencies and to counter the government’s claims that the First Amendment protects its coercive
Fischer v. United States — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the merits opposing the Biden Justice Department’s use of the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-shredding statute against the January 6 defendants. The statute, which can be used to impose sentences of up to 20 years in prison, was passed in the wake of the Enron document shredding scandal, but is now being used by the Biden DOJ as a cudgel to obtain guilty pleas
NRA v. Vullo — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s challenge to the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) coercion of banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. We previously filed an amicus brief in support NRA’s petition which was granted.
Our amicus brief demonstrated New York’s pattern of coercive behavior towards private