Law Matters — Episode 22

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law, Executive Orders

Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief in U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State, supporting the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order instructing the State Department pause taxpayer funding of illegal alien assistance and resettlement programs for 90-days to assess programmatic efficiencies and consistency with foreign policy.

Read More

Law Matters — Episode 20

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law

Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our Amicus brief filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States of America v Eric Adams, the Biden Administration Department of Justice’s politically-motivated prosecution against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which President Trump’s administration is now trying to dismiss.

Link to Podcast

Law Matters — Episode 18

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law, Executive Orders

Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief at the New Hampshire District Court in New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, defending President Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship. We also look into how President Trump being named as a defendant in this and other lawsuits violates Separation of Powers.

Link to podcast

Law Matters — Episode 15

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law, Election Law

Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S Supreme Court amicus brief in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case challenging Illinois’ “Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute,” which purports to extend “election day” by allowing state election officials to continue receiving and counting absentee ballots for up to 14 days after the polls officially close.

Link to Podcast

Law Matters — Episode 13

ddavies Appearances, Constitutional Law

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.