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
Kennedy v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today’s amicus brief was filed in the 5th Circuit supporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense in their fight against the Government’s Censorship Enterprise. The Government interprets the Supreme Court’s recent Murthy v. Missouri decision to make it impossible for Americans whose voices have been secretly throttled or even extinguished by the Government to get their day in court. We explain why the Kennedy Plaintiffs have standing under Murthy. Government promises to behave cannot be trusted. Future offenses can be expected that should be enjoined, as the same FBI which censored stories about the Hunter Biden laptop to elect Biden-Harris can be expected to do so again to try to elect Harris-Waltz. We call out how the Government’s ongoing censorship, backed by threats, of social media platforms, which they euphemistically described as “content moderation.”
Link to brief
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus brief on remand
Today, our firm filed a second brief in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), this time on remand from the Supreme Court after it issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi. Our brief argued that Rahimi did not change the Bruen test that the Fifth Circuit had previously applied, and thus Rahimi would not change the outcome previously reached by the Fifth Circuit.
U.S. v. Texas — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ SB4, which allows law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of unlawfully being in the United States and Texas. The Biden Administration filed suit against Texas seeking to have SB4 enjoined. Our amicus brief argued that Texas has the authority under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 and as a sovereign entity to defend itself and
U.S. v. Abbott — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas Governor Abbott’s installation of floating barriers on the Rio Grande. Our brief argued that Texas has the inherent power as a sovereign entity to defend its people against invasion across its borders. Our brief also demonstrated that Texas’ actions are consistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 as it is under an “actual
FSC v. Paxton — Amicus Brief filed to support of Texas Porn Age Verification Law
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit to help defend a Texas law enacted to require age verification for pornographic websites. An adult entertainment association and others challenged the law, and a federal district judge issued an injunction against the law, preventing it from taking effect.
Our amicus brief argued that the district court employed an interest balancing test
Missouri v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana. The challengers sought and received a preliminary injunction against certain members of the Biden Administration, prohibiting them from continuing to pressure social media companies to censor speech that they oppose. Our brief argued that the federal government has an improper view of its
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal prohibition on firearms possession by anyone who uses an unlawful substance. Our brief was filed at the invitation of the Fifth Circuit, which is seeking to understand whether 922(g)(3) has any historical analogues under the Bruen analysis. Our brief argued
Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden — Amicus brief on Rehearing En Banc
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit following its grant of a petition for rehearing en banc to reconsider President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. Our brief argued that the Civil Service Reform Act did not bar the lawsuit as the Fifth Circuit panel had previously ruled. Also, our brief argued that President Biden lacked the authority to issue
Cargill v. Garland — Supplemental Amicus Brief on Rehearing En Banc
Today, our firm file a supplemental amicus brief for the Fifth Circuit’s rehearing en banc of a challenge to the ATF’s bump stock rule. (We previously file an amicus brief in support of the petition for rehearing en banc.) Our brief argued that the bump stock rule was politically motivated and that bump
Texas v. United States — DACA appeal
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
Cargill v. Garland — Amicus Brief
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
State of Texas v. United States
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
Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting efforts by the State of Texas to outlaw unbelievably cruel and barbaric dismemberment abortions.
Hollis v. Lynch — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the federal machine gun ban, ironically passed as part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
Under the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), “persons” are generally prohibited from possessing machineguns. A “person” is defined to include entities such a
Texas v. United States — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the challenge by State of Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s misuse of “executive action” (“DAPA”) to implement provisions of the DREAM Act that Congress refused to enact.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation,
U.S. v. Ramos/Compean Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for Rehearing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
We filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of two former Border Patrol agents’ Petitions for Rehearing. This brief emphasized areas where the Fifth Circuit panel’s decision was inconsistent with the law as set forth in our earlier brief filed with the court on May 25, 2007.
Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of Congressmen Walter B. Jones (R-NC),
Ramos/Compean Amicus Oral Argument
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in the Ramos/Compean appeal. Our local counsel, Mark Brewer, was in attendance and sat at counsel table with the attorneys for appellants Ramos and Compean.
The three-judge panel consisted of Judges E.
U.S. v. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean Amicus Brief for Congressman Walter Jones, et al. 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)
Today we filed a Brief Amicus Curiae in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting the appeal of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. Counts four and five of the indictment charge the two with “Discharge of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence,” under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c), which the Supreme Court has ruled is only a sentencing factor, not one of the three elements