Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the issue of government censorship committed by coercing Big Tech social media companies to do the censoring of protected speech. Our amicus brief presented additional arguments to support the respondents’ claims that they had standing to sue the federal agencies and to counter the government’s claims that the First Amendment protects its coercive
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the merits opposing the Biden Justice Department’s use of the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-shredding statute against the January 6 defendants. The statute, which can be used to impose sentences of up to 20 years in prison, was passed in the wake of the Enron document shredding scandal, but is now being used by the Biden DOJ as a cudgel to obtain guilty pleas
Today, our firm filed our fifth amicus brief opposing the ATF’s Rule banning bumpstocks — and our third amicus brief in this case. Our amicus brief argued that the bumpstock rule was politically motivated and was not based on a better interpretation of the statutes relating to machineguns. We also explained how the technical mechanisms of a semi-automatic rifle operates, both with and
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief opposing an effort to remove President Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado. The challengers claim that Trump engaged in “insurrection” and thus is ineligible to be President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, in a 4-3 decision. Our amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide only the
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s challenge to the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) coercion of banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. We previously filed an amicus brief in support NRA’s petition which was granted.
Our amicus brief demonstrated New York’s pattern of coercive behavior towards private
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a January 6 defendant. Our brief argued that, since the government claimed the election protest on January 6 was an insurrection, it should have charged many defendants with that crime, but instead it charged no one with insurrection, preferring use of a Sarbanes-Oxley provision (which does not apply) to get a
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in defense of the proper Second Amendment interpretation recognized in D.C. v. Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. This case involves the federal firearms ban on individuals who have certain types of restraining orders issued against them, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). To try to prevent the Bruen
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in a challenge to California’s efforts to coerce social media companies to censor a user on Twitter. The petitioner had a tweet deleted and then his account suspended by Twitter, at the direction of California and its Office of Elections Cybersecurity. Our brief disputed California’s censorship of “false
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a case requesting the Supreme Court to overturn its Chevron doctrine, a judicially created rule to defer to executive branch agency interpretations of statutes instead of the courts actually interpreting the statutes. Our amicus brief described the confusion caused by Chevron deference, both in the D.C. Circuit in this case and as demonstrated in the various
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the ATF’s reclassification of bumpstocks as machineguns. Our amicus brief explained that the bumpstock ban was a reversal of position for the ATF, and was not based on new analysis, but rather at the direction of the President. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion below was based on marketing
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of a challenge to the unconstitutional funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The CFPB is funded through the Federal Reserve, not through constitutional congressional appropriations. Our brief demonstrated that the Federal Reserve is also not funded by congressional appropriations, which is another
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Our brief explained how Justice Brennan’s opinion in that case radically changed libel law by immunizing most libel against public figures. Brennan’s opinion was based neither on the First Amendment text nor a
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s Petition for Certiorari challenging New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) threats to banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. Our amicus brief explained that the Second Circuit, ruling in favor of New York, relied on a “reputational risk” justification that was once
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
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
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that the Supreme Court has granted review in to consider the scope of immunity granted to technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was enacted in the nascent days of the Internet revolution to prevent liability from third-party behavior from crippling innovation in Internet technologies.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an emergency application for stay of a subpoena for phone records issued by the House January 6 Committee. Our brief was filed on behalf of America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
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.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of two owners of a specialty cake shop in Oregon. The owners were targeted because they are Christians and were fined by the state of Oregon for declining to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Our brief argued that Oregon’s public accommodations law defies the jurisdictional limit on government imposed by the
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief for America’s Future in the U.S. Supreme Court which is considering whether state courts may usurp the constitutional role of state legislatures to set the “Times, Places and Manner” for holding Congressional elections under Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1. Our brief answered that question in the negative, arguing that the U.S. Constitution assigns
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a Second Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms in his home by police after Petitioner was taken for a mental health examination. The police now assert that the “special needs exception” to the Fourth Amendment permitted the search and seizure.
Our brief urges the Supreme Court to grant
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Missouri and nine other states challenging the CMS vaccine mandate for workers healthcare at certain facilities. Our brief argued that the vaccine mandate is not permitted under either the Spending Clause or the Commerce Clause. Our brief also argued that the vaccine mandate impermissible commandeers state employees