Today we filed an amicus brief for former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III supporting the dismissal of criminal charges against General Michael Flynn. In our brief we argue that the Attorney General of the United States, not a federal district judge, has the primary responsibility for ensuring that criminal charges are brought only for violations of actual federal crimes. In the
Today, we filed a Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief for Kaycee McCoy (see complaint here). After a hearing on the request for a temporary injunction, the Circuit Court requested additional briefing on the temporary injunction factors.
The Memorandum argued that the freedom of religion recognized in Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution creates a jurisdictional barrier to the
Today, we filed a Complaint against the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia Health System on behalf of a university employee who was refused her religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and was notified that she would be terminated. The Complaint as well as the accompanying Application for a Temporary Injunction claim that
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari filed by small business owner who provides website design services. She would like to begin offering custom wedding websites, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (the same law used against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece
Today, our firm filed its third amicus brief in the Jewel litigation, this time in support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Ninth Circuit. A panel of the Ninth Circuit once again ruled in support of the federal government, holding that the Jewel plaintiffs had failed to set forth sufficient evidence to establish standing and also affirming the district court’s exclusion of such
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, as ordered by the Sixth Circuit, we filed a Supplemental Brief on the issue of Standing in our challenge to ATF’s revocation of the rights of licensed Michigan gun owners to purchase firearms without a NICS check.
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 an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a
California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law
mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth
Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and
the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the
Today, we filed an brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc. and other nonprofits opposing Philadelphia’s challenge to the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s long-standing firearms preemption statute. That statute prevents Philadelphia from imposing greater firearms restrictions on its residents than those approved by the General Assembly for Pennsylvania as a whole. Philadelphia bases
This afternoon, Bill Olson testified via ZOOM before a subcommittee of the South Carolina Judiciary Committee opposing various bills calling for an Article V Convention of the States, also known as a Constitutional Convention. He also submitted the paper he and Herb Titus wrote exposing the false premises and false assurances of those supporting this radical proposal.
The Paper submitted to the Subcommittee is entitled “The ‘Con-Con’ Con” is available here.
In a 2-1 decision issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit gave a victory to Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League in their challenge to the ATF Bumpstock regulations issued December 26, 2018. The opinion was written by Judge Alice M. Batchelder. Robert Olson of our firm argued the case in the Sixth Circuit, December 11, 2019.
Today we filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Sixth Circuit in challenge to the ATF changing their policy, and refusing to allow persons with Michigan Concealed Carry Permits to purchase guns without another NICS check.
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
The Bull Elephant ran the article we wrote with Patrick M. McSweeney on the several ways in which the Senate Trial of President Trump violates the U.S. Constitution. We address: Article I, § 3, clause 7; Article II, § 4; Article I, § 3, clause 6; Article I, § 9, clause 3; and Article I, § 5, clause 2.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the University of Michigan’s infringement on the Second Amendment rights of its students. We explain why the university’s ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and various decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, including District of Columbia v. Heller.
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
With Pat McSweeney, Bill Olson wrote this article in Western Journal suggesting a way to circumvent the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Texas’ original action challenging the changes in election law unconstitutionally imposed by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court.
Today, our firm filed our 25th amicus brief in support of the positions and policies of President Donald Trump since his inauguration on January 20, 2017. (On the other hand, when the Trump Administration erroneously banned the possession of bumpstocks, we filed suit to enjoin the ATF rule, in a case still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.)
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.