Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our recent amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Reel v. North Carolina, a case challenging the expansion of a controversial law enforcement tactic known as the “knock and talk” technique, which allows officers
Bill Olson presentation to Gun Owners of America
Bill Olson gave a presentation at an all-staff meeting of Gun Owners of America held in Maryland on May 6, 2026. The presentation explained how GOA’s two Supreme Court amicus briefs (here and here) in United States v. Antoine Jones helped restore the property basis for the Fourth Amendment, and how subsequent briefs have sought to expand it.
Law Matters — Episode 41
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in Chatrie v. United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of geofence warrants used by law enforcement to obtain digital information from cell phone service providers and whether such warrants violate Fourth Amendment rights.
Chatrie v. United States — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 41
Law Matters — Episode 31
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief in Moses v. United States of America, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment in the “curtilage” area adjacent to a one’s home.
Moses v. United States of America — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 31
Law Matters — Episode 12
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discus the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act and our amicus brief in Hotze v. U.S. Department of Treasury.
Hotze v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 12
Law Matters — Episode 8
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discus the “stop and frisk” doctrine and our Supreme Court of the United States amicus brief in Cooper v. United States.
Cooper v. United States — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 8
Torcivia v. Suffolk County — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a Second Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms in his home by police after Petitioner was taken for a mental health examination. The police now assert that the “special needs exception” to the Fourth Amendment permitted the search and seizure.
Our brief urges the Supreme Court to grant
Jewel v. NSA — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
In Jewel, a group of plaintiffs are seeking a federal injunction against the widespread, warrantless surveillance of communications involving Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). The case has been litigated for over a decade, most recently with the Ninth Circuit denying relief in a dismissive, one-page opinion. The Jewel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to
Lindell v. Pelosi — Complaint
We are serving as co-counsel to Mike Lindell in a challenge to a subpoena issued by the January 6 House Select Committee for his phone records, where a complaint was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Jewel v. NSA — Amicus Supporting Rehearing En Banc
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
FBI v. Fazaga — FISA & State Secrets Privilege
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
Caniglia v. Strom
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
Lange v. California
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.
Rodriguez v. City of San Jose
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review an inexplicable Ninth Circuit decision upholding an illegal search and seizure of firearms by the San Jose Police after her husband had a mental health crisis. Seven years after that seizure, the City of San Jose, California is still refusing to return her firearms to her. Even though Lori Rodriguez is not a disqualified person, more than seven years later, she is still fighting a court battle to recover those firearms, a battle which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jewel v. NSA
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief in a challenge to the most sweeping Fourth Amendment violations ever committed by the U.S. government. (Our last brief was filed over four years ago.) This suit seeks to stop three different mass surveillance programs operated by the federal government — programs which have seized Internet (email, internet searches, etc.) and telephone communications
Johnson v. United States
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine its Terry v. Ohio, stop-and-frisk doctrine. Although Terry stop and frisks were limited to a search for weapons, in this case one was used to justify seizing a bullet. Since that decision in 1968, both Fourth and Second Amendment law has changed. The property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been re-established, and the