Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Biden v. Nebraska, a case challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness vote buying scheme. Our brief, filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC, explained that the Framers of the Constitution structured the national government with a separation of powers
Morehouse v. ATF — Appellants’ Reply Brief
Today, our firm filed the Reply Brief of the Private Appellants in the appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration’s ATF rulemaking on frames and receivers in the Eighth Circuit.
Crawford v. Pennsylvania — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statutes which establishes that Pennsylvania municipalities do not have the authority to enact local gun laws. We previously filed an amicus brief in this case when it was before the Commonwealth Court. Gilbert Ambler of Ambler Law Offices was co-counsel on the amicus brief.
Morehouse v. ATF — Appellants’ Opening Brief
Today, our firm filed in the Eight Circuit the Opening Brief of the Private Appellants in the challenge to the Biden Administration’s ATF rulemaking on frames and receivers challenging the denial of a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
United States v. Texas — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of Texas and Louisiana and their challenge to the Biden Administration’s written policy not to enforce certain immigration laws. Our amicus brief argued that the States have standing to challenge the unlawful federal actions, both under the doctrine of “special solicitude” standing and parens patriae standing.
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
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
Cargill v. Garland — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc in a case challenging the bump stock ban. Our brief explained that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun, and that only Congress has the power to amend the text of statutes. Finally, we explained that the district court’s and the court of appeals panel’s conclusions contradicted
NFIB v. OSHA — Amicus Supporting Stay of Vaccine Mandate
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support applications of stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate and a petition for certiorari before judgment. Numerous parties sought court review and a stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate after it was issued on November 5, 2021. After the Sixth Circuit allowed the mandate to take effect, requests for stay were sought in the Supreme Court as well as petitions for
Liberty University Amicus Brief Opposes VA Gov. Northam COVID-19 Controls on Commonwealth
Since March, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has imposed a draconian set of rules and regulations on the People and businesses of Virginia, ostensibly to address the COVID-19 threat. Yet he has refused to call the Virginia General Assembly into session to get authority to impose controls. Under his theory, his power is virtually limitless, and could continue into next year, and beyond. Today we
United States v. Michael Flynn
On behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, our firm filed an amicus brief supporting the dismissal of charges against General Michael Flynn. Our brief also opposes the court’s inquiry into bringing contempt and perjury charges against General Flynn. The case against General Flynn is currently pending in both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where we filed this brief, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where we earlier filed a brief for General Flynn.
Link to CU/CUF/TPC Amicus Brief
Link to Motion for Leave to File
In re: Michael Flynn
Today we filed an amicus brief for former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III supporting the dismissal of criminal charges against General Michael Flynn. In our brief we argue that the Attorney General of the United States, not a federal district judge, has the primary responsibility for ensuring that criminal charges are brought only for violations of actual federal crimes. In the
State of New York v. Department of Health and Human Services
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit defending President Trump’s and his Department of Health and Human Services’ effort to protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in abortions, sterilizations, and euthanasia. Our brief explains that Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs are still pursuing an Eugenics Agenda. Our brief explains how the
DHS v. Regents of the University of California
Today we file our fourth amicus brief in support of President Trump’s authority to rescind President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA policy. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to review the lower court orders which have prevented President Trump from changing policy, and we address the issues in our merits amicus brief. We explain why the decision to end DACA was not judicially reviewable, and that DACA itself was unlawful. Our prior briefs were filed February 2, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court, March 14, 2018 in the Second Circuit, and December 6, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bump Stocks: Gun Owners of America v. Barr — Brief for Appellants
Today we filed our opening brief in the Sixth Circuit case of Gun Owners of America v. Barr — challenging the district court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the ATF total ban on the private ownership of bump stocks.
DHS v. Regents of the University of California & Nielsen v. Vidal (DACA)
Today, we filed our third brief in support of President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. We urge the Supreme Court to review the three pending injunctions against the rescission issued by Democrat judges. We asked the High Court to determine the legality of “universal injunctions” by district judges, as well as the constitutionality of
Gundy v. United States
Today, we filed an amicus merits brief in the Supreme Court addressing the 80-year old anti-delegation doctrine. Our brief explains why the “intelligible principle” test that was adopted by the Court has failed to uphold the constitution’s structural integrity. We explain that separation of powers is essential to preserve the liberty of the American people. And we explain why it is particularly problematic for Congress to delegate to an unelected bureaucrat the power to criminalize behavior.
New York v. Trump (DACA)
Just before midnight tonight, we filed our fourth brief defending President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. This brief was filed in the Second Circuit, which is considering an appeal from a “nationwide” or “universal” injunction issued by one Democrat lawyer currently serving as an unelected federal district judge in Brooklyn, who had been appointed in 2000 by President Clinton — Nicholas G. Garaufis.
Hawaii v. Trump
Today, we filed our seventh amicus brief in support of President Trump’s immigration actions, this time, in support of his September 24, 2017 Proclamation. Our brief challenged the purported standing of the plaintiffs below, where the district court based standing on the Establishment Clause, but then granted the injunction based on statutory grounds. Our brief argued that the question
Trump v. IRAP; Trump v. Hawaii
Today we filed our sixth brief in support of the Trump Immigration Executive Orders. Three of those prior briefs were in the Ninth Circuit; one in the In the Fourth Circuit; and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, we set out four major arguments, on the critical issues which will be decided by the High Court..
First, we explain that as written and as applied the Establishment Clause
Hawaii v. Trump
Today, our firm filed its fourth brief in support of President Trump’s effort to impose immigration controls. This brief supported President Trump’s second Executive Order issued on March 6, 2017 — to secure our borders against entry by those coming from select countries where their background cannot be checked.
Our first two briefs were filed in the Washington State challenge, in the
United States v. Texas
Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program. (We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.) Our brief explains why the Executive Branch had no authority (through DAPA or otherwise) to grant unilaterally