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.
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 126 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.
The Washington Times published an op ed written by Bill Olson and Pat McSweeney demonstrating the plenary authority of state legislatures to appoint electors. The piece explains that state certifications of votes are no impediment to a state legislatures power. And, legislatures may act without the call of the Governor. It is entitled “State legislatures have absolute authority to select 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, Bill Olson and Virginia attorney Pat McSweeney released a paper they co-authored entitled “The Constitutional Duty of State Legislatures in a Contested Presidential Election.” The paper discusses in depth the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which vest total responsibility and power on state legislatures to select electors. This power includes the duty to ensure the integrity of a Presidential election, particularly when there is demonstrated fraud, corruption and foreign intrigue. The Western Journal published that article here: Link to article
Today our firm served as co-counsel to file an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Kamala Harris’s eligibility for the office of Vice President of the United States. In our brief, we explain the meaning of the “natural born citizen” requirement set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, and discuss why Harris does not qualify.
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 we sent a letter, transmitting copies of our October 6, 2020 complaint and exhibits that had been filed with the Federal Election Commission, to DNI Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray. This submission was made pursuant to a request of Director Wray made at a Press Conference seeking information about foreign intervention in federal elections on October 21, 2020.
Today we filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission detailing violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act committed by Facebook, AFP Fact Check, and possibly Kamala Harris for Vice President. The complaint is based on multiple acts of suppression of information about the anti-gun views of Vice Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris by Facebook, pursuant to decisions made by a French
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 we filed an amicus brief in a California appellate count in support of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church. That Church began holding in-person, indoor services in late July despite a ban imposed on such services by Los Angeles County due to COVID-19. The Church, inter alia, has asserted that the ban violates Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a California law which requires background checks for persons seeking to buy ammunition. Our brief explained the history of how the 9th Circuit has employed various legal tests and other techniques to allow certain judges hostile to gun rights to evade application of the Second Amendment, as written.
Today we filed our response to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s petition for review the temporary injunction we obtained from Lynchburg Circuit Court protecting the right of 18, 19, and 20 year olds to purchase handguns.
Today we filed an opposition to the State Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the District Court to review key Steele Dossier documents in camera.
Today we filed a petition for review in the Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts’ denial of a portion of our application for temporary injunction. Judge Yeatts issued a temporary injunction against the Virginia State Police to bar enforcement of one of the Northam gun bills barring 18 to 20 year old Virginians from purchasing handguns in private
Since March, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has imposed a draconian set of rules and regulations on the People and businesses of Virginia, ostensibly to address the COVID-19 threat. Yet he has refused to call the Virginia General Assembly into session to get authority to impose controls. Under his theory, his power is virtually limitless, and could continue into next year, and beyond. Today we