L-R: Rob Olson and Erich Pratt.
Today, Rob Olson presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our continuing litigation against ATF’s bump stock regulation issued in December 2018. The issue today before the court was the correctness of District Judge Paul Maloney’s ruling denying our motion for a preliminary injunction against the regulation. This article in CourthouseNews discusses the oral argument.
John Crump of Ammoland wrote an article about Gun Owners of America obtaining from ATF its internal “Firearms Industry Operations Manual.” This manual allows FFLs to better prepare for inspections by ATF. The manual was obtained by GOA in a matter our firm handled A PDF of the manual is available here.
The homosexual website Advocate had some nice words about our amicus brief in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.
The CT Mirror carried a story discussing the ramifications of the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case Texas v. United States. The article quoted our amicus brief, filed May 8, 2019.
Today we obtained for Citizens United, from FOIA litigation against the State Department, key documents concerning the FISA Warrants against Trump Campaign workers. For the first time, these documents demonstrate that even before the first FISA Application was filed, the FBI and Justice Department were on notice that the Steele dossier was unverifiable, contained errors, was politically generated,
National Public Radio ran a story about the Trump Administration’s regulation to ban bump stocks, and the legal challenge we filed for Gun Owners of America, in which Rob Olson of our firm was interviewed.
World Net Daily carried a story discussing the amicus brief we filed in Young v. Hawaii on November 19, 2018.
The Article quotes Bill Olson, saying “Not only is it an effort to have a societal sanction for an immoral lifestyle, but it’s being accomplished by unelected judges who are admitting they are changing the law,”
David Bossie of Citizens United discusses State Department resistance to providing records relating to potential illegality during Obama Administration. Discusses two of the cases we have been litigating for Citizens United.
This article in CT Tribune covered our FOIA lawsuit for Citizens United against the U.S. Department of State to obtain Obama official Victoria Nuland’s emails.
Daily Caller article discusses our comments opposing Bump Stock Ban for Gun Owners Foundation.
Townhall covered our comments to ATF on Bumpstock Regulations for Gun Owners Foundation.
World Net Daily reviewed our brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Paxton. This article stressed our argument that judges who do not exhibit “good behavior” while in office are subject to removal.
The study reported: “Perhaps the biggest development in the modern Supreme Court alongside the great discretion the justices now have in dictating the cases they hear is the role of interest groups. Over the past several decades the Supreme Court has increasingly become the forum for such groups and their attempts at persuasion; the object of persuasion being the amicus brief…. Cases that lead the Court to rule statutes unconstitutional or to overturn its own precedent tend to have significant policy effects and the Court is often directed to such aspects of cases in early phases of litigation…. According to the United States Supreme Court Database, the Court has ruled a statute unconstitutional and/or has overturned its own precedent in 87 cases since the 2000 term. Approximately 836 merits stage amicus briefs were filed in this set of cases or just under 10 briefs per case on average. Several groups were clearly dominant in filing briefs on behalf of winning sides in these cases and consequently in moving policy in their preferred directions.”
This article in Reuters refers to our brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Trump travel ban, and quotes Mike Boos, General Counsel of Citizens United, one of the amici on the brief.
Bloomberg BNA carried an article discussing the brief we filed in U.S. v. Robinson on July 24, 2017.
World Net Daily ran an article about our firm’s brief filed in Zarda v. Altitude Express. The article addressed the factual problem with the case that we raised, in that the Appellant’s brief admitted that Zarda, a homosexual, was not fired because he was homosexual, but because he “over-shared” his sexual orientation with customers. The article also focuses on our argument that the Courts have no business legislating from the bench.
Bloomberg BNA carried an article about the briefs filed in the Zarda v Altitude Express case, including the brief we filed.
This article in the Connecticut Law Tribune summarizes the GOA/GOF brief in the Soto v Bushmaster litigation in Connecticut.
