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.
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
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.
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
Brandt v. Griffin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in defense of Arkansas’s law protecting minors from life-altering “gender transition” procedures. Our brief revealed serious shortcomings in the district court’s findings of fact, upon which the injunction was based. Our brief also explained how the district court relied on the opinions
Fischer v. United States — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a January 6 defendant. Our brief argued that, since the government claimed the election protest on January 6 was an insurrection, it should have charged many defendants with that crime, but instead it charged no one with insurrection, preferring use of a Sarbanes-Oxley provision (which does not apply) to get a
FSC v. Paxton — Amicus Brief filed to support of Texas Porn Age Verification Law
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit to help defend a Texas law enacted to require age verification for pornographic websites. An adult entertainment association and others challenged the law, and a federal district judge issued an injunction against the law, preventing it from taking effect.
Our amicus brief argued that the district court employed an interest balancing test
O’Handley v. Weber — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in a challenge to California’s efforts to coerce social media companies to censor a user on Twitter. The petitioner had a tweet deleted and then his account suspended by Twitter, at the direction of California and its Office of Elections Cybersecurity. Our brief disputed California’s censorship of “false
CFPB v. Townstone Financial — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in defense of a Chicago-area mortgage company which had been sued by one of the most activist left-wing federal agencies in Washington — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The mortgage company’s radio show criticized the prevalence of crime in Chicago and surrounding areas, causing the CFPB to accuse it of racial discrimination
Missouri v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana. The challengers sought and received a preliminary injunction against certain members of the Biden Administration, prohibiting them from continuing to pressure social media companies to censor speech that they oppose. Our brief argued that the federal government has an improper view of its
Blankenship v. NBCUniversal — Amicus supporting petition for certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Our brief explained how Justice Brennan’s opinion in that case radically changed libel law by immunizing most libel against public figures. Brennan’s opinion was based neither on the First Amendment text nor a
NRA v. Vullo — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s Petition for Certiorari challenging New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) threats to banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. Our amicus brief explained that the Second Circuit, ruling in favor of New York, relied on a “reputational risk” justification that was once
Tingley v. Ferguson — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge against Washington State’s ban on licensed counselors from providing biblical counsel on sexual morality to young people. Our brief argued that the state’s censorship law violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause and the free exercise of religion clause. We explained how the Washington Legislature, district