Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 15
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 13
Smith and Wesson v. Mexico — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 14
Hotze v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 12
United States v. Trump — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 10
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 11
Mahmoud v. Taylor — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 9
Cooper v. United States — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 8
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
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 7
Snope v. Brown — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision approving Maryland’s 2013 ban on “assault weapons.” The banned firearms are ordinary semi-automatic weapons and most are “commonly used,” if not ubiquitous among the gun-owning public, except where banned by a few states. We argue that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was really an attempt to circumvent Bruen. We argue “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct” in possessing such a weapon. Our brief shows that the “plain text” of the Second Amendment presumptively protects bearable firearms and Maryland could provide no relevant historical analogues.
Link to brief
United States v. Idaho — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief to oppose the Biden Administrations effort to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to undermine Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act.” We argue that the Biden Administration has been exceedingly hostile to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and is working to circumvent it. The HHS Secretary had no statutory authority to issue the guidance documents to require elective abortions to be performed. We argue that the guidance documents constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ police power and exceeds federal spending power.
Link to brief
Doe v. Ladapo — Amicus Brief
The district court invalidated a Florida statute designed to protect minors from the current fad of transgenderism, for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Our amicus brief rejected the district court’s assumption that a law based on transgender status was equivalent to racism. We also showed that the district court erroneously relied on medical “standards” recommended by an
Tennessee v. Cardona — Amicus Brief
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule which directed that under Title IX, discrimination ” on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the DOE Rule does not implement, but rather undermines Title IX. The Rule destroys
Crouch v. Anderson — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief filed today urges the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision ordering West Virginia Medicaid to pay for gender transition procedures. The opinion was based on modern transgender ideology, finding no difference between removal of cancerous tissue and removing healthy body parts. The Fourth Circuit based its decision on that court’s Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board case — a case in which our firm filed four amicus briefs to prevent a girl from accessing the boys restroom. Now that seemingly innocuous (and erroneous) precedent is being badly misused.
The circuit court relied on Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), but in recent months, an abundance of evidence has surfaced that WPATH is an advocacy group, not an independent medical organization. Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery. There was no justification to expand the Equal Protection Clause to require dangerous and irreversible procedures to make persons suffering a type of mental disorder feel better about themselves.
Link to brief
West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by the State of West Virginia, to protect its law protecting girls in girls’ sports from unfair and potentially dangerous competition from biological males. Men have an unfair physical advantage over girls for many reasons, and allowing them to compete against girls deprives girls of the ability to develop their own abilities and be recognized for their achievements. The Fourth Circuit, over a strong and thoughtful dissent, sacrificed girls’ sports on the altar of transgenderism. The division in sports between girls and boys has been well established and is unquestionably legal and constitutional. The Grimm decision allowing a girl to use the boys’ restroom, on which the Fourth Circuit relied, is no precedent whatsoever for compelling a school to allow boy to compete against girls in girls’ sports. Moreover, Grimm was based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), an organization has been exposed as having been a political player in the transgender wars, not a neutral medical organization focused on actual health issues. WPATH has tailored its standards to facilitate wins in court. Even if a court believes a specific transgender person could benefit from some policy, that does not provide the judiciary the authority to override the state legislature and impose that policy on a state. No court has the right to compel the rest of the country to sacrifice their liberty to satisfy those who wish to participate in what is, at base, an ancient Pagan practice, dangerous to all concerned.
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 5
Little v. Hecox — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces