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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that the Supreme Court has granted review in to consider the scope of immunity granted to technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was enacted in the nascent days of the Internet revolution to prevent liability from third-party behavior from crippling innovation in Internet technologies.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an emergency application for stay of a subpoena for phone records issued by the House January 6 Committee. Our brief was filed on behalf of America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of two owners of a specialty cake shop in Oregon. The owners were targeted because they are Christians and were fined by the state of Oregon for declining to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Our brief argued that Oregon’s public accommodations law defies the jurisdictional limit on government imposed by the
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a motion to quash filed by Eagle Forum of Alabama opposing a subpoena by the federal government. The subpoena demands confidential information from a nonprofit advocacy organization relating to a law passed by Alabama which bans certain medical procedures harmful to minors.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the merits in 303 Creative. We previously filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for certiorari. Our amicus brief argued that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act empowers militant, homosexual activists to use the legal system to attack and destroy Christian business owners.
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 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 we filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment rights of California nonprofit organizations, which are currently being required to file a list of their major donors with the California government. Our brief, filed on behalf of 21 nonprofit organizations, explains why a Constitutional Republic should never require voluntary associations to reveal the identity of their members
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of AFPF’s and Thomas More’s First Amendment challenge to California’s compelled disclosure of information about the major donors of nonprofit organizations. We explain in our brief why the Ninth Circuit erred in determining that the Supreme Court’s landmark NAACP v. Alabama decision does not apply here. Second, we
Today we filed an amicus brief in a California appellate count in support of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church. That Church began holding in-person, indoor services in late July despite a ban imposed on such services by Los Angeles County due to COVID-19. The Church, inter alia, has asserted that the ban violates Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution
On April 8, 2020, we learned that an individual had challenged Virginia Governor Northam’s Executive Order banning meetings — including Church Services — so that he could go to church on Easter without fear of being charged. The case was filed in Virginia Circuit Court in Russell County, in far Southwest Virginia. Since the petition included a claim under the First Amendment,
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a complaint filed by Coral Ridge Ministries Media, which has been unfairly classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We explain in our brief that the SPLC defames organizations like Coral Ridge Ministries by adding them to a “hate map,” which is used
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a petition for certiorari designed to challenge a 2015 Montana State election law. The law regulated “electioneering communications” — borrowing a term which Congress had employed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to require reporting of a narrow category of broadcast advertisements
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 22 organizations and fundraisers opposing a California requirement that nonprofits surrender the names of their large donors before soliciting contributions in that state. Now, we are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Ninth Circuit.This is the sixth brief we filed defending the right of nonprofits to withhold IRS Form 990 Schedules B, protecting the anonymity of their donors. In our brief, we address four issues —why such disclosure demands are unconstitutional for four reasons: freedom of association under NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Alabama; blanket restrictions of charitable solicitation under Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates; breach of anonymity under Watchtower v. Village of Stratton and Talley v. California; and lastly, because in addition to retaliation by the public, government officials could retaliate against those donors funding nonprofits working to oppose government policies.
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief challenging the City of Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance, designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. As we did in our first brief in the Seventh Circuit, we argue here that this case should be handled not as an abortion rights case, but