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 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 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.
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment rights of California nonprofit organizations, which are currently being required to file a list of their major donors with the California government. Our brief, filed on behalf of 21 nonprofit organizations, explains why a Constitutional Republic should never require voluntary associations to reveal the identity of their members
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of AFPF’s and Thomas More’s First Amendment challenge to California’s compelled disclosure of information about the major donors of nonprofit organizations. We explain in our brief why the Ninth Circuit erred in determining that the Supreme Court’s landmark NAACP v. Alabama decision does not apply here. Second, we
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision which allowed a ban on gun possession by a man who had suffered a mental health crisis as a minor, but who had since then been found by the State of Washington not to be a danger to himself or to others. Nevertheless, as the Ninth Circuit has done in every Second Amendment challenge brought before
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a First Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms by police after a Petitioner husband and his wife had a non-violent, non-threatening argument. Tired of arguing with his wife, the husband threw down an unloaded handgun and said something like “just shoot me.” The next day the police showed
Today we filed an amicus brief opposing warrantless home invasions by police officers in pursuit of fleeing misdemeanor suspects. Both parties asked the court to reject a categorical approach that would allow such searches, but both favored a case-by-case rule that could allow such searches in some cases. To remain consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Fourth Amendment, we argued in favor of a categorical rule against such warrantless home invasions.
Today we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC in support of Texas’ attempt to restore constitutional order to the selection of Presidential Electors. We explain how Texas and other states were harmed by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin when they allowed the circumvention of election procedures adopted by their state legislatures.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’ original action against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin challenging their certification of Presidential Electors.
This brief was filed for U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson and a group of 106 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In this brief, these Members of the federal legislature seek to protect the constitutional powers of state legislatures to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors.
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania seeking to challenge the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changing Pennsylvania election law at the last minute before the November elections. We explained that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania state legislature to make these decisions with respect to federal elections, subject only to Congressional action. We urge the Supreme Court to take the case to invalidate any ballots received after election day.
Today we filed our second amicus brief in the case of Trump v. New York, on the merits, defending the discretion given by Congress to the President to conduct the census. In our brief, we urge the court to reverse the district court’s decision which mandates that illegal aliens be counted in the apportionment basis for allocating seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
Today our firm filed the only amicus brief (at least thus far) in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Trump v. New York, supporting President Trump’s Memorandum instructing the Secretary of Commerce to provide him with data necessary to reapportion the House of Representatives among the states without counting illegal aliens. The brief was filed for Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation,
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review an inexplicable Ninth Circuit decision upholding an illegal search and seizure of firearms by the San Jose Police after her husband had a mental health crisis. Seven years after that seizure, the City of San Jose, California is still refusing to return her firearms to her. Even though Lori Rodriguez is not a disqualified person, more than seven years later, she is still fighting a court battle to recover those firearms, a battle which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a petition for certiorari designed to challenge a 2015 Montana State election law. The law regulated “electioneering communications” — borrowing a term which Congress had employed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to require reporting of a narrow category of broadcast advertisements
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 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.
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