DeKalb County Republican Party v. Raffensperger — Supplemental Amicus Brief

ddavies Election Law

Alarmed at the Secretary of State’s argument at the hearing that he has no continuing duty to ensure that the election equipment remains in compliance with the USEAC and VVSG standards, we filed a supplemental amicus brief arguing that the Georgia Constitution and statutes do impose a continuing requirement on the Secretary to ensure that elections are lawfully conducted.

Link to Motion to File and Supplemental Amicus Brief

Louisiana v. Dept. of Education — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Today, we filed an Amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit supporting a challenge brought by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho to the U.S. Department of Education’s April 29, 2024 Final Rule.  That Rule expanded the meaning of the Title IX ban on discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”   Our brief argued that the Rule destroys personal privacy for women and girls; destroys women’s and girls’ sports; and censors the free speech rights of teachers and students.  We argue that the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision should neither control nor inform a decision in this case.  Finally, we point out that the DOE Rule presupposes that biological sex is not an immutable reality, but rather a social construct, changeable at will. Link to brief Link to prior Title IX amicus brief, Tennessee v. Cardona

Kennedy v. Biden — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Today’s amicus brief was filed in the 5th Circuit supporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense in their fight against the Government’s Censorship Enterprise.  The Government interprets the Supreme Court’s recent Murthy v. Missouri decision to make it impossible for Americans whose voices have been secretly throttled or even extinguished by the Government to get their day in court.  We explain why the Kennedy Plaintiffs have standing under Murthy.  Government promises to behave cannot be trusted.  Future offenses can be expected that should be enjoined, as the same FBI which censored stories about the Hunter Biden laptop to elect Biden-Harris can be expected to do so again to try to elect Harris-Waltz.   We call out how the Government’s ongoing censorship, backed by threats, of social media platforms, which they euphemistically described as “content moderation.” Link to brief For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 7

Snope v. Brown — Amicus Brief

ddavies Firearms Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today, we filed an Amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision approving Maryland’s 2013 ban on “assault weapons.”   The banned firearms are ordinary semi-automatic weapons and most are “commonly used,” if not ubiquitous among the gun-owning public, except where banned by a few states.  We argue that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was really an attempt to circumvent Bruen.  We argue “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct” in possessing such a weapon. Our brief shows that the “plain text” of the Second Amendment presumptively protects bearable firearms and Maryland could provide no relevant historical analogues. Link to brief

United States v. Idaho — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Today, we filed an Amicus brief to oppose the Biden Administrations effort to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)  to undermine Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act.”   We argue that the Biden Administration has been exceedingly hostile to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and is working to circumvent it.  The HHS Secretary had no statutory authority to issue the guidance documents to require elective abortions to be performed.  We argue that the guidance documents constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ police power and exceeds federal spending power. Link to brief

Doe v. Ladapo — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The district court invalidated a Florida statute designed to protect minors from the current fad of transgenderism, for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Our amicus brief rejected the district court’s assumption that a law based on transgender status was equivalent to racism.   We also showed that the district court erroneously relied on medical “standards” recommended by an Read More

Tennessee v. Cardona — Amicus Brief

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule which directed that under Title IX, discrimination ” on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”   Our brief argued that the DOE Rule does not implement, but rather undermines Title IX.  The Rule destroys Read More

Crouch v. Anderson — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari

ddavies Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Our amicus brief filed today urges the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision ordering West Virginia Medicaid to pay for gender transition procedures.  The opinion was based on modern transgender ideology, finding no difference between removal of cancerous tissue and removing healthy body parts.  The Fourth Circuit based its decision on that court’s Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board case — a case in which our firm filed four amicus briefs to prevent a girl from accessing the boys restroom.  Now that seemingly innocuous (and erroneous) precedent is being badly misused. The circuit court relied on Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), but in recent months, an abundance of evidence has surfaced that WPATH is an advocacy group, not an independent medical organization.  Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery.  There was no justification to expand the Equal Protection Clause to require dangerous and irreversible procedures to make persons suffering a type of mental disorder feel better about themselves. Link to brief