Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to California’s near-complete ban on open carry of firearms. Our brief exposed how the district court rewrote the issues of the case so that it could reach its own predetermined decision, criticized and then rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller and Bruen, and upheld yet another California law violating
U.S. v. Texas — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ SB4, which allows law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of unlawfully being in the United States and Texas. The Biden Administration filed suit against Texas seeking to have SB4 enjoined. Our amicus brief argued that Texas has the authority under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 and as a sovereign entity to defend itself and
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Maryland’s handgun license requirement. Our brief set out the history of the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment, and demonstrated that the permit requirement violates the Second Amendment as well as the Bruen test. Our brief concluded by providing examples of individuals
U.S. v. Abbott — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas Governor Abbott’s installation of floating barriers on the Rio Grande. Our brief argued that Texas has the inherent power as a sovereign entity to defend its people against invasion across its borders. Our brief also demonstrated that Texas’ actions are consistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 as it is under an “actual
Miller v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in an appeal on whether California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban violates the Second Amendment. Our brief described the various ways in which California has demonstrated its hostility to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions. We argue that the assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment using the Bruen test.
Duncan v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed its fifth amicus brief in the Duncan saga, a case challenging California’s high-capacity magazine ban. Our brief argued that the case was not properly before the en banc panel for initial hearing en banc. We showed how California has a history of hostility to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions on that amendment. Finally, we explain how the magazine
American First Legal Foundation v. Department of Agriculture — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United in an appeal challenging the Biden Administration’s withholding of agency reports in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. President Biden issued Executive Order 14019 on March 6, 2021, directing every executive branch agency to provide a report to the White House on ways
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
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
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
Koons v. Platkin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a New Jersey law prohibiting concealed carry of a firearm in a large number of so-called “sensitive places.” Our brief explained how New Jersey’s effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court’s Bruen analysis of Second Amendment challenges falls woefully short.
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
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal prohibition on firearms possession by anyone who uses an unlawful substance. Our brief was filed at the invitation of the Fifth Circuit, which is seeking to understand whether 922(g)(3) has any historical analogues under the Bruen analysis. Our brief argued
Boland v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act.” Our brief argued that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms also protects attendant rights, such as the right to acquire modern, state-of-the-arm firearms. We urged the Ninth Circuit that the Second Amendment does not permit balancing tests such as weighing enumerated
U.S. v. Missouri — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act which declares that certain federal firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of Missourians. Our brief argued that the district court did not properly understand the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and that it also violates
B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in defense of West Virginia’s law which seeks to preserve girls’ sports for girls. The ACLU brief filed for the boy challenging that law begins “B.P.J. is a twelve-year-old girl.” It then admits B.P.J. was identified at birth as a male, and has been diagnosed with “gender dysphoria.”
Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools — Amicus Brief
Today, we worked with Connecticut counsel Joseph Secola to file an amicus brief before the en banc Second Circuit to support a challenge to a Connecticut rule requiring state schools to allow boys/biological males to compete against girls/biological females. The amicus brief explained how the female plaintiffs were disadvantaged by allowing biological males to compete against them. It discussed
Tennessee v. Department of Education — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Tennessee and several other states against the Biden Administration’s guidance documents dictating how government funded schools must treat homosexuals and transgender students issued by the Department of Education. These rules are far reaching, including boys showering with girls and competing in girls’ sports,
Rhode v. Bonta — Supplemental Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed a supplemental amicus brief addressing the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen on the Rhode case. Our firm previously filed an amicus brief in support of Rhode in the Ninth Circuit on August 7, 2020.
Yukutake v. Hawaii — Supplemental Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed a supplemental amicus brief addressing the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen on the Yukutake case. Our firm previously filed an amicus brief in support of Yukutake in the Ninth Circuit on May 2, 2022.
Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden — Amicus brief on Rehearing En Banc
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit following its grant of a petition for rehearing en banc to reconsider President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. Our brief argued that the Civil Service Reform Act did not bar the lawsuit as the Fifth Circuit panel had previously ruled. Also, our brief argued that President Biden lacked the authority to issue
Duncan v. Bonta — Supplemental Amicus Brief on Remand
Today, we filed a supplemental amicus brief on remand, our fourth amicus brief in this case. Our brief recounted the two-step test overturned by the Supreme Court in Bruen, and put this case in the context of the various cases on remand within the Ninth Circuit since Bruen. It then explained how to apply Bruen to this case. Our brief also reminded the Ninth Circuit of
Cargill v. Garland — Supplemental Amicus Brief on Rehearing En Banc
Today, our firm file a supplemental amicus brief for the Fifth Circuit’s rehearing en banc of a challenge to the ATF’s bump stock rule. (We previously file an amicus brief in support of the petition for rehearing en banc.) Our brief argued that the bump stock rule was politically motivated and that bump
Yukutake v. Hawaii — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to help defend a decision of the district court of Hawaii striking down two state restrictions on firearms purchase. Hawaii law requires that even after obtaining a permit to purchase a specific handgun, the permit expired after 10 days, and then the firearm must be physically carried to a police station for inspection.
Texas v. United States — DACA appeal
Today, we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Texas and other states against Obama’s DACA policy. Our brief explained that the Texas states have standing to bring this challenge to DACA. Further, our brief argued that DACA presents several constitutional violations, including the separation of the powers as it is an exercise of legislative power, and that it violates