Law Matters — Episode 9
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our recent amicus brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the First Amendment’s “establishment of religion” and “free exercise” clauses.
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
Law Matters — Episode 5
In Episode 5, we discussed our amicus briefs supporting petitions for certiorari in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J..
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
West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by the State of West Virginia, to protect its law protecting girls in girls’ sports from unfair and potentially dangerous competition from biological males. Men have an unfair physical advantage over girls for many reasons, and allowing them to compete against girls deprives girls of the ability to develop their own abilities and be recognized for their achievements. The Fourth Circuit, over a strong and thoughtful dissent, sacrificed girls’ sports on the altar of transgenderism. The division in sports between girls and boys has been well established and is unquestionably legal and constitutional. The Grimm decision allowing a girl to use the boys’ restroom, on which the Fourth Circuit relied, is no precedent whatsoever for compelling a school to allow boy to compete against girls in girls’ sports. Moreover, Grimm was based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), an organization has been exposed as having been a political player in the transgender wars, not a neutral medical organization focused on actual health issues. WPATH has tailored its standards to facilitate wins in court. Even if a court believes a specific transgender person could benefit from some policy, that does not provide the judiciary the authority to override the state legislature and impose that policy on a state. No court has the right to compel the rest of the country to sacrifice their liberty to satisfy those who wish to participate in what is, at base, an ancient Pagan practice, dangerous to all concerned.
Little v. Hecox — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a coalition of parents of schoolchildren in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The parents are challenging a policy of the school district to assist children with sexual transitioning without telling the parents of those children. The lower courts dismissed the claims, concluding that the parents did not have standing to
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
Comments to Department of Education — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Athletics Rulemaking
Today, we filed comments on behalf of America’s Future, Public Advocate of the United States, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in response to a Department of Education notice of proposed rulemaking on “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic
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.”
Tingley v. Ferguson — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
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,
Comments to Department of Education — Title IX Rulemaking
Today, we filed comments on behalf of America’s Future in response to a Department of Education notice of proposed rulemaking on “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” Our comments oppose the regulatory redefinition of “sex” as used by Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.
Gloucester County School Board v. Gavin Grimm
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the Gloucester County School Board case, which now has been been in litigation for over five years. This case involves a high school girl who claimed that her high school violated Title IX by not allowing her to use the boys’ bathroom because she “identifies” as a boy. By a vote of 2-1, the Fourth Circuit panel found a violation. Our brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, explains why the School Board made the right choice, and shows why Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were not violated.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of a Christian employer, Harris Funeral Homes, against a case brought by a male who demanded his employer allow him to dress like a woman. We explained why Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act could never be interpreted to apply to such claims.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review its decision giving a meaning to Title VII that Congress never intended. The Sixth Circuit decided to change a 50-year old understanding of Title VII to accommodate to the demands of LGBTQ activists, by barring employment discrimination
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2