Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the merits in 303 Creative. We previously filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for certiorari. Our amicus brief argued that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act empowers militant, homosexual activists to use the legal system to attack and destroy Christian business owners.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to help defend a decision of the district court of Hawaii striking down two state restrictions on firearms purchase. Hawaii law requires that even after obtaining a permit to purchase a specific handgun, the permit expired after 10 days, and then the firearm must be physically carried to a police station for inspection.
In Heltzel, a group of plaintiffs are challenging the removal by former Governor Ralph Northam of the Robert E. Lee Monument, which had stood in Richmond for 120 years. The Heltzel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court which sanctioned that removal. Today, our firm filed the only amicus brief in support of the Lee Monument and against
In Jewel, a group of plaintiffs are seeking a federal injunction against the widespread, warrantless surveillance of communications involving Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). The case has been litigated for over a decade, most recently with the Ninth Circuit denying relief in a dismissive, one-page opinion. The Jewel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to
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
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
Today, we filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Governor Youngkin’s Executive Directive No. 2. The Supplemental Memorandum is in support of the Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief for Kaycee McCoy regarding the University of Virginia Health System’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Coral Ridge Ministries. In the courts below (where we filed an amicus brief), Coral Ridge’s defamation complaint against SPLC was dismissed under the Supreme Court’s decision
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
Today, we filed a Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief for Kaycee McCoy (see complaint here). After a hearing on the request for a temporary injunction, the Circuit Court requested additional briefing on the temporary injunction factors.
The Memorandum argued that the freedom of religion recognized in Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution creates a jurisdictional barrier to the
Today, we filed a Complaint against the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia Health System on behalf of a university employee who was refused her religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and was notified that she would be terminated. The Complaint as well as the accompanying Application for a Temporary Injunction claim that
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari filed by small business owner who provides website design services. She would like to begin offering custom wedding websites, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (the same law used against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece
Today, our firm filed its third amicus brief in the Jewel litigation, this time in support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Ninth Circuit. A panel of the Ninth Circuit once again ruled in support of the federal government, holding that the Jewel plaintiffs had failed to set forth sufficient evidence to establish standing and also affirming the district court’s exclusion of such
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of certain Muslims in Los Angeles who were surveilled electronically and otherwise by the FBI and a confidential informant. The FBI has asserted the state secrets doctrine to seek dismissal of most claims, including a FISA claim under which the district court could conduct an ex parte in camera review of the surveillance to determine if there were
Today, as ordered by the Sixth Circuit, we filed a Supplemental Brief on the issue of Standing in our challenge to ATF’s revocation of the rights of licensed Michigan gun owners to purchase firearms without a NICS check.
Today we filed a brief for CLDEF in support of the effort by Mississippi to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) and in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). We argued that Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence in no way was based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, but rather the personal preferences of the justices. Our brief exposed three major flaws in Roe: 1. Roe relied on misrepresentations about how common law viewed abortion; 2. Roe made flawed assumptions understating the maternal risk from abortion; and 3. Roe erroneously assumed state anti-abortion laws were not written to defend the life of the preborn. Lastly, we urged the Court to end its historical embrace of eugenics.
Today we filed a brief for Intercessors for America in support of the effort by Mississippi to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) and in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). We argued that the Court erred in establishing “viability” as the touchstone for its abortion decisions. We also explained how Justice Blackmun based his decision on a Pagan foundation. We cited many Supreme Court sources to demonstrate that the Court increasingly does what it wants to do, regardless of what the Constitution states. We review how the Court’s jurisprudence in areas such as the Establishment Clause and government schools has established paganism as our nation’s religion. Lastly, we explain that this Court’s abortion cases have brought bloodguilt upon the land and opened the nation to God’s righteous temporal judgments.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to the virtual ban on concealed carry in New York State. The brief was filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and the Heller Foundation. We critique the Second Circuit case in Kachalsky v County of Westchester, explain how the New York licensing scheme undermines the prefatory
We filed our second brief in the Young v. Hawaii challenge to Hawaii’s virtual total ban on carrying firearms in the State of Hawaii. Our earlier brief was filed before the Ninth Circuit en banc. This brief was filed in the U.S .Supreme court in support of Young’s Petition for Certiorari. We urge the Court to overturn the two-step test used in many Second Amendment challenges. We also challenge the “longstanding” ban in Hawaii, most of which occurred during the time Hawaii was governed by a Monarchy. We demonstrate why certiorari should be granted even though New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett is pending before the court. And we trace the numerous criticisms by Justices and Judges as to how the lower courts have treated the Second Amendment since Heller and McDonald.
Today, we filed an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a
California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law
mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth
Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and
the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the