We began the year with a brief opposing abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our brief defends a Louisiana statute requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. The Louisiana statute is similar to the Texas statute considered in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The law was challenged by an abortion clinic and abortion doctors, claiming that the statute creates an “undue burden” on the court-created right to an abortion. Our brief argued that the clinic and the doctors did not have standing to assert the rights of women who were not part of the case. Instead, we argued, the “undue burden” test is flawed and should be abandoned. Finally, we explained that for decades the Supreme Court has applied its terrible “super-precedent” of Roe v. Wade, to corrupt any legal principle that would stand in the way of abortion rights. We asked the Court to continue to reject what we termed its “abortion-predilection” jurisprudence that began with National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (“NIFLA”). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on March 4, 2020.
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 22 organizations and fundraisers opposing a California requirement that nonprofits surrender the names of their large donors before soliciting contributions in that state. Now, we are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Ninth Circuit.This is the sixth brief we filed defending the right of nonprofits to withhold IRS Form 990 Schedules B, protecting the anonymity of their donors. In our brief, we address four issues —why such disclosure demands are unconstitutional for four reasons: freedom of association under NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Alabama; blanket restrictions of charitable solicitation under Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates; breach of anonymity under Watchtower v. Village of Stratton and Talley v. California; and lastly, because in addition to retaliation by the public, government officials could retaliate against those donors funding nonprofits working to oppose government policies.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to a California law limiting the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. We explain that the two-step test used by the lower federal courts undermines the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald. And we explain that weapons useful in military service are exactly the type of weapons covered by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller and Heller.
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief in a challenge to the most sweeping Fourth Amendment violations ever committed by the U.S. government. (Our last brief was filed over four years ago.) This suit seeks to stop three different mass surveillance programs operated by the federal government — programs which have seized Internet (email, internet searches, etc.) and telephone communications of Americans since after 09-11. The district court below dismissed Jewel’s Fourth Amendment claims in 2015, but the Ninth Circuit case reversed and sent the case back. Earlier this year, the district court again dismissed Jewel’s Fourth Amendment claims. Our brief here asserts that Jewel established standing, that Jewel properly set out a property (and privacy) based claim for a Fourth Amendment violation, and explains how the government’s seizure and search of records was even worse than a prohibited general warrant.
Today we filed our reply brief in the Sixth Circuit challenge to the ATF bumpstock regulations brought by Gun Owners of America. The issue is the district court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the ATF from declaring bump stocks contraband, by classifying them as machine guns.
Today we filed our second amicus brief in the defense of a firearms manufacturer who was sued in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook shooting. Our prior brief was in the Connecticut Supreme Court. This brief supports the manufacturer’s effort to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the plaintiffs’ theories were rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but it allowed the case to proceed based on advertising that supposedly would have appealed to young males to conduct shootings. Our brief explains why the Connecticut Court erred in its creation of a huge exception to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a statute designed specifically to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from suits such as this one.
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.
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of Altitude Express from a case brought by a homosexual skydiving instructor who was fired for speaking inappropriately at work about his sexual orientation. The Altitude Express case has been consolidated with a case from the Eleventh Circuit — Bostock. As in the Harris Funeral Case, we explain that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Ac does not apply to sexual orientation.
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.
Our FOIA suit for Citizens United to obtain additional documents about the Christopher Steele briefing at the State Department concerning the Steele Dossier on October 11, 2016 continues. Today we filed our Memorandum in Opposition to the State Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment together with our Reply to the State Department’s Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment.
Also filed today was Exhibit A to our filing, which consists of documents recently released by the State Department on July 5, 2019.
Lastly, we filed our Statement of Genuine Issues.
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief challenging the City of Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance, designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. As we did in our first brief in the Seventh Circuit, we argue here that this case should be handled not as an abortion rights case, but as a First Amendment case — and that the legal principles that apply to First Amendment cases should not be bent merely because this case involves the issue of abortion.
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.
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine its Terry v. Ohio, stop-and-frisk doctrine. Although Terry stop and frisks were limited to a search for weapons, in this case one was used to justify seizing a bullet. Since that decision in 1968, both Fourth and Second Amendment law has changed. The property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been re-established, and the Second Amendment has been recognized as protecting an individual right.
Today we filed a motion for summary judgment, memorandum of points and authorities, and two proposed orders in a FOIA case seeking records on an October 11, 2016 briefing which Christopher Steele gave at the State Department concerning his Steele dossier. This is the case in which the State Department released never-before-seen Kavalec emails proving that the FBI was on notice that the Steele dossier was politically motivated and highly unreliable, even before it was used to obtain the first FISA warrant against Carter Page.
Today we filed our second amicus brief in support of a challenge to New York City’s near prohibition on transporting firearms. This is the first Second Amendment case that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Our brief details the lower courts’ open prejudice against gun rights and its disregard for the Supreme Court’s protection of Second Amendment rights since those earlier cases.
Today our firm filed our ninth amicus brief opposing Obamacare. This briefs supports challenge to Obamacare brought by the State of Texas and other states based on the fact it is unconstitutional since the penalty for the individual mandate was zeroed out by Congress in December 2017. Earlier, we filed the only amicus brief supporting the Texas challenge in district court in Texas. This brief urges the Fifth Circuit to affirm the decision of the district court by Judge Reed O’Connor.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief involving a challenge to a Fourth Amendment violation by a social worker who strip-searched a four-year-old girl, without consent of the child or her mother, in search of tell-tale signs of child abuse. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that the social worker was not liable under the Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity. Our brief argues for limitations on the qualified immunity doctrine, and explains why the doctrine does not apply in this case.
Today our firm filed an emergency application for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court (directed to Justice Sotomayor, Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit), requesting that the Court stay the effective date of the ATF’s Final Rule banning bump stocks pending review of the case by the Sixth Circuit.
Today our firm filed a 28(j) letter with the Sixth Circuit, citing additional information in the D.C. Circuit cases of Guedes and Codrea. We point out that although the courts have issued stays in these and similar cases, the stays only apply to the specific appellants in each case, and do not grant the nationwide relief to bump stock owners being sought by Gun Owners of America, et al.
The ATF reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns will take effect on Tuesday, March 26. The federal district court in which we challenged this classification change has yet to rule on our motion for an injunction. Therefore, we were forced to file this emergency petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief opposing a strained reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act disclosure requirement which CREW has urged a federal court to be forced on the FEC. FEC rules have long required the disclosure by non-political committees of donors giving to support specific Independent Expenditures (IEs). Reversing that established rule, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the FEC to change its rules in unspecified ways apparently to force nonprofits to disclosure the names of every donor to a nonprofit even made in response to a solicitation that simply mentions doing IEs.
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of the Department of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question for the 2020 Census. A federal court in New York issued an injunction against the administration from adding the citizenship question, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari before a judgment of the Second Circuit. Our brief explained that the purpose of the decennial census is for apportionment of representation of our nation’s citizens in the House of Representatives and that the district court’s decision was based on a globalist worldview.
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the government’s ability to track citizens through Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) obtained without a warrant. In this case, the trial court allowed the government to introduce 28 months of CSLI obtained by a prosecutor using a mere Grand Jury Subpoena. We argue that the Carpenter v. United States decision, issued in 2018, affirms the protection of CSLI under the Fourth Amendment, and the third-party doctrine does not apply. Our brief explains why the “good faith” exception applies only to police, and not prosecutors. This brief, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, is our third amicus brief in support of Philip Zodhiates.