Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Biden v. Nebraska, a case challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness vote buying scheme. Our brief, filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC, explained that the Framers of the Constitution structured the national government with a separation of powers
Tennessee v. Department of Education — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Tennessee and several other states against the Biden Administration’s guidance documents dictating how government funded schools must treat homosexuals and transgender students issued by the Department of Education. These rules are far reaching, including boys showering with girls and competing in girls’ sports,
Morehouse v. ATF — Appellants’ Reply Brief
Today, our firm filed the Reply Brief of the Private Appellants in the appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration’s ATF rulemaking on frames and receivers in the Eighth Circuit.
Gonzalez v. Google — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that the Supreme Court has granted review in to consider the scope of immunity granted to technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was enacted in the nascent days of the Internet revolution to prevent liability from third-party behavior from crippling innovation in Internet technologies.
Morehouse v. ATF — Appellants’ Opening Brief
Today, our firm filed in the Eight Circuit the Opening Brief of the Private Appellants in the challenge to the Biden Administration’s ATF rulemaking on frames and receivers challenging the denial of a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
United States v. Texas — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of Texas and Louisiana and their challenge to the Biden Administration’s written policy not to enforce certain immigration laws. Our amicus brief argued that the States have standing to challenge the unlawful federal actions, both under the doctrine of “special solicitude” standing and parens patriae standing.
Comments to Department of Education — Title IX Rulemaking
Today, we filed comments on behalf of America’s Future in response to a Department of Education notice of proposed rulemaking on “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” Our comments oppose the regulatory redefinition of “sex” as used by Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.
Morehouse v. ATF — Amended Complaint with 17 States Joining as Plaintiffs
Today, we filed an amended complaint adding 17 States as plaintiffs joining our lawsuit challenging the ATF’s new “frame or receiver” rule.
Morehouse v. ATF — Complaint against “Frame or Receiver” Rule
Today, we filed a challenge to the Biden Administration’s ATF final rule revising the definition of “frame” or “receiver” which was published on April 26, 2022.
Trump v. New York (Merits)
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.
Amicus Brief: Trump v. New York
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,
Reply to Virginia’s Response in Opposition filed in Virginia Supreme Court on Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO
After we filed our Emergency Petition for Review last night, this morning at about 9:15 am, the Solicitor General of Virginia filed his Response in Opposition. We filed our Reply to that Opposition about 1:00 pm. The Virginia Supreme Court issued an Order denying our Petition for Review about 6:15 pm.
Emergency Petition for Review filed Against Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO
About 6:00 pm this evening, we filed in the Virginia Supreme Court an Emergency Petition for Review asking the Court to enjoin Governor Northam’s Executive Order banning firearms on the grounds of the Virginia Capitol, as unauthorized by law, in violation of law (Virginia Code section 44-146.15) , and unconstitutional. (See next entry.)
Complaint & Application for Temporary Injunction Against Virginia Governor Northam’s Gun Ban EO
About noon on Wednesday, January 15, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency in Virginia and issued Executive Order 49, which temporarily bans the possession or carrying of firearms in Richmond on Lobby Day (Monday, January 20). Today, Thursday, January 16, about noon, on behalf of Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League, and three individuals, our firm filed a Complaint and Application in the the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, seeking a temporary injunction against the Governor’s order. In this case, we are working with David G. Browne, Esquire of Spiro and Browne, in Richmond. A hearing was held before Judge Joi Jeter Taylor from 1:30 to 2:30 pm. Judge Taylor issued an Order denying our Application at 4:31 pm. (This led to our filing an Emergency Petition for Review in the Virginia Supreme Court about 6:00 pm (see next entry).
Bump Stocks: Gun Owners of America v. Barr — Reply Brief
Today we filed our reply brief in the Sixth Circuit challenge to the ATF bumpstock regulations brought by Gun Owners of America. The issue is the district court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the ATF from declaring bump stocks contraband, by classifying them as machine guns.
Bostock v. Clayton County & Altitude Express v. Zarda
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of Altitude Express from a case brought by a homosexual skydiving instructor who was fired for speaking inappropriately at work about his sexual orientation. The Altitude Express case has been consolidated with a case from the Eleventh Circuit — Bostock. As in the Harris Funeral Case, we explain that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Ac does not apply to sexual orientation.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of a Christian employer, Harris Funeral Homes, against a case brought by a male who demanded his employer allow him to dress like a woman. We explained why Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act could never be interpreted to apply to such claims.
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
CREW v. FEC
Today our firm filed an amicus brief opposing a strained reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act disclosure requirement which CREW has urged a federal court to be forced on the FEC. FEC rules have long required the disclosure by non-political committees of donors giving to support specific Independent Expenditures (IEs). Reversing that established rule, the U.S. District Court for the District
Jeremy Kettler v. United States
Today, we filed a Petition for Certiorari on behalf of Jeremy Kettler, who was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor. Our petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision, and to determine whether the National Firearms Act continues to be an appropriate exercise of Congress’s taxing power due to the many changes that have been made to the
Law 360 Article Discusses our Harris Funeral Home Brief
Bill Olson was quoted in an article by Braden Campbell called “States, Faith Groups Tell Justices To Hear Trans Bias Case,” in Law 360: “’We have a lower federal judiciary that’s spinning out of control as circuits race toward political correctness, and if the Supreme Court doesn’t restore order, it’s hard to know where this is going to end,’ Olson said, referencing
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review its decision giving a meaning to Title VII that Congress never intended. The Sixth Circuit decided to change a 50-year old understanding of Title VII to accommodate to the demands of LGBTQ activists, by barring employment discrimination
Article: Trump Administration Rift on LGBT Worker Rights Nears Showdown
Chris Opfer of BNA News wrote an article about the Zarda case where we filed a brief and other similar cases.where LGBTQ? advocates are asking judges to re-write the 1964 Civil Rights Act to grant them special rights.
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
Altitude Express v. Zarda
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a petition for certiorari to review a circuit court decision giving homosexuals the right to sue employers, even though Congress never authorized such suits. Ten liberal Second Circuit judges joined a decision to rewrite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment. This
EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. — Sixth Circuit Discusses Our Amicus Brief
The Sixth Circuit’s decision, issued today, addressed an issue that our amicus brief had raised, which had not been raised by the parties. That issue was whether the Harris Funeral Home qualified under the “ministerial exception” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the Funeral Home did not qualify. Unfortunately, the Harris Funeral
- Page 1 of 2