Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in defense of Arkansas’s law protecting minors from life-altering “gender transition” procedures. Our brief revealed serious shortcomings in the district court’s findings of fact, upon which the injunction was based. Our brief also explained how the district court relied on the opinions
Today, we worked with Texas attorneys Joseph Secola and Mark Brewer to file an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court to support a county justice of the peace whose religious convictions prevented her from marrying same-sex couples. The brief argued that the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s action showed bias against Bible-believing Christians and violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a January 6 defendant. Our brief argued that, since the government claimed the election protest on January 6 was an insurrection, it should have charged many defendants with that crime, but instead it charged no one with insurrection, preferring use of a Sarbanes-Oxley provision (which does not apply) to get a
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in defense of the proper Second Amendment interpretation recognized in D.C. v. Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. This case involves the federal firearms ban on individuals who have certain types of restraining orders issued against them, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). To try to prevent the Bruen
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit to help defend a Texas law enacted to require age verification for pornographic websites. An adult entertainment association and others challenged the law, and a federal district judge issued an injunction against the law, preventing it from taking effect.
Our amicus brief argued that the district court employed an interest balancing test
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in a challenge to California’s efforts to coerce social media companies to censor a user on Twitter. The petitioner had a tweet deleted and then his account suspended by Twitter, at the direction of California and its Office of Elections Cybersecurity. Our brief disputed California’s censorship of “false
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in defense of a Chicago-area mortgage company which had been sued by one of the most activist left-wing federal agencies in Washington — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The mortgage company’s radio show criticized the prevalence of crime in Chicago and surrounding areas, causing the CFPB to accuse it of racial discrimination
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a New Jersey law prohibiting concealed carry of a firearm in a large number of so-called “sensitive places.” Our brief explained how New Jersey’s effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court’s Bruen analysis of Second Amendment challenges falls woefully short.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana. The challengers sought and received a preliminary injunction against certain members of the Biden Administration, prohibiting them from continuing to pressure social media companies to censor speech that they oppose. Our brief argued that the federal government has an improper view of its
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a case requesting the Supreme Court to overturn its Chevron doctrine, a judicially created rule to defer to executive branch agency interpretations of statutes instead of the courts actually interpreting the statutes. Our amicus brief described the confusion caused by Chevron deference, both in the D.C. Circuit in this case and as demonstrated in the various
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the ATF’s reclassification of bumpstocks as machineguns. Our amicus brief explained that the bumpstock ban was a reversal of position for the ATF, and was not based on new analysis, but rather at the direction of the President. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion below was based on marketing
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of a challenge to the unconstitutional funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The CFPB is funded through the Federal Reserve, not through constitutional congressional appropriations. Our brief demonstrated that the Federal Reserve is also not funded by congressional appropriations, which is another
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal prohibition on firearms possession by anyone who uses an unlawful substance. Our brief was filed at the invitation of the Fifth Circuit, which is seeking to understand whether 922(g)(3) has any historical analogues under the Bruen analysis. Our brief argued
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Our brief explained how Justice Brennan’s opinion in that case radically changed libel law by immunizing most libel against public figures. Brennan’s opinion was based neither on the First Amendment text nor a
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act.” Our brief argued that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms also protects attendant rights, such as the right to acquire modern, state-of-the-arm firearms. We urged the Ninth Circuit that the Second Amendment does not permit balancing tests such as weighing enumerated
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s Petition for Certiorari challenging New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) threats to banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. Our amicus brief explained that the Second Circuit, ruling in favor of New York, relied on a “reputational risk” justification that was once
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act which declares that certain federal firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of Missourians. Our brief argued that the district court did not properly understand the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and that it also violates
Today, we filed comments on behalf of America’s Future, Public Advocate of the United States, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund 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: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in defense of West Virginia’s law which seeks to preserve girls’ sports for girls. The ACLU brief filed for the boy challenging that law begins “B.P.J. is a twelve-year-old girl.” It then admits B.P.J. was identified at birth as a male, and has been diagnosed with “gender dysphoria.”
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge against Washington State’s ban on licensed counselors from providing biblical counsel on sexual morality to young people. Our brief argued that the state’s censorship law violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause and the free exercise of religion clause. We explained how the Washington Legislature, district
Today, David Hardy of Tucson, Arizona, filed an amicus brief, that our firm prepared with him, in support of Kari Lake’s Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Our amicus brief argued that the Lake only needed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, not by the clear and convincing standard applied by the courts below. Furthermore,
Today, our firm, with Kerry Morgan of Wyandotte, Michigan, filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the University of Michigan’s complete ban against possession of firearms by all students. The case is on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court where we previously filed an amicus brief in this case.
Today, our firm, with David Browne of Spiro & Browne, PLC, file a Reply in Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in a challenge to Virginia’s ban on handgun sales to adults under 21. Previously, a temporary injunction was granted pending consideration of the challenge.