Law Matters — Episode 50
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Defending Education v. Sullivan, a challenge to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which imposes gender ideology mandates in violation of the First Amendment.
Law Matters — Episode 42
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear International Partners for Ethical Care (IPEC) v. Ferguson, a challenge to a Washington State law that facilitates trafficking of minors and violates parental rights by giving runaway minors “gender affirming treatment” without parental notice or consent.
Law Matters — Episode 13
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District 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.
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 13
Law Matters — Episode 9
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our recent amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the First Amendment’s “establishment of religion” and “free exercise” clauses.
Mahmoud v. Taylor — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 9
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
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
Tennessee v. Cardona — Amicus Brief
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule which directed that under Title IX, discrimination ” on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the DOE Rule does not implement, but rather undermines Title IX. The Rule destroys
Crouch v. Anderson — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief filed today urges the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision ordering West Virginia Medicaid to pay for gender transition procedures. The opinion was based on modern transgender ideology, finding no difference between removal of cancerous tissue and removing healthy body parts. The Fourth Circuit based its decision on that court’s Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board case — a case in which our firm filed four amicus briefs to prevent a girl from accessing the boys restroom. Now that seemingly innocuous (and erroneous) precedent is being badly misused.
The circuit court relied on Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), but in recent months, an abundance of evidence has surfaced that WPATH is an advocacy group, not an independent medical organization. Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery. There was no justification to expand the Equal Protection Clause to require dangerous and irreversible procedures to make persons suffering a type of mental disorder feel better about themselves.
Link to brief