For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 8
Snope v. Brown — Amicus Brief
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
Crouch v. Anderson — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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 Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery.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
West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by the State of West Virginia, to protect its law protecting girls in girls’ sports from unfair and potentially dangerous competition from biological males. Men have an unfair physical advantage over girls for many reasons, and allowing them to compete against girls deprives girls of the ability to develop their own abilities and be recognized for their achievements. The Fourth Circuit, over a strong and thoughtful dissent, sacrificed girls’ sports on the altar of transgenderism. The division in sports between girls and boys has been well established and is unquestionably legal and constitutional. The Grimm decision allowing a girl to use the boys’ restroom, on which the Fourth Circuit relied, is no precedent whatsoever for compelling a school to allow boy to compete against girls in girls’ sports. Moreover, Grimm was based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), an organization has been exposed as having been a political player in the transgender wars, not a neutral medical organization focused on actual health issues. WPATH has tailored its standards to facilitate wins in court. Even if a court believes a specific transgender person could benefit from some policy, that does not provide the judiciary the authority to override the state legislature and impose that policy on a state. No court has the right to compel the rest of the country to sacrifice their liberty to satisfy those who wish to participate in what is, at base, an ancient Pagan practice, dangerous to all concerned.
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters, Episode 5
Little v. Hecox — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Our amicus brief supports a petition for certiorari filed by Governor Bradley Little of Idaho concerning the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. That law bars males from participation in girls’ supports based on clear factual findings of the legislature. The Ninth Circuit found the Act discriminatory and unconstitutional, believing that the new concept of transgenderism legally dislaces
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a coalition of parents of schoolchildren in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The parents are challenging a policy of the school district to assist children with sexual transitioning without telling the parents of those children. The lower courts dismissed the claims, concluding that the parents did not have standing to
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief for Maricopa County GOP
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to challenge election procedures used in Arizona in 2022. Our brief was filed for the Maricopa County Republican Committee, 10 other county GOP committees, the Nebraska and New Mexico State Republican Parties, and CLDEF. Our brief discussed how the courts have repeatedly found
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake, former candidate for governor of Arizona and current candidate for U.S. Senate. Lake filed suit against Arizona to require that it follow Arizona law to ensure the integrity of elections when using electronic voting machines. Our amicus brief supported the standing of Lake to bring the challenge,
Fischer v. United States — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
O’Handley v. Weber — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
Guedes v. ATF — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
Blankenship v. NBCUniversal — Amicus supporting petition for certiorari
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
NRA v. Vullo — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
Tingley v. Ferguson — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
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
Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of two owners of a specialty cake shop in Oregon. The owners were targeted because they are Christians and were fined by the state of Oregon for declining to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Our brief argued that Oregon’s public accommodations law defies the jurisdictional limit on government imposed by the
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
Missouri v. Biden — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Missouri and nine other states challenging the CMS vaccine mandate for workers healthcare at certain facilities. Our brief argued that the vaccine mandate is not permitted under either the Spending Clause or the Commerce Clause. Our brief also argued that the vaccine mandate impermissible commandeers state employees
Heltzel v. Youngkin — Amicus brief supporting petition for certiorari
In Heltzel, a group of plaintiffs are challenging the removal by former Governor Ralph Northam of the Robert E. Lee Monument, which had stood in Richmond for 120 years. The Heltzel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court which sanctioned that removal. Today, our firm filed the only amicus brief in support of the Lee Monument and against
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
Coral Ridge Ministries v. Southern Poverty Law Center — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Coral Ridge Ministries. In the courts below (where we filed an amicus brief), Coral Ridge’s defamation complaint against SPLC was dismissed under the Supreme Court’s decision
303 Creative v. Elenis
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari filed by small business owner who provides website design services. She would like to begin offering custom wedding websites, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (the same law used against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece
Young v. Hawaii
We filed our second brief in the Young v. Hawaii challenge to Hawaii’s virtual total ban on carrying firearms in the State of Hawaii. Our earlier brief was filed before the Ninth Circuit en banc. This brief was filed in the U.S .Supreme court in support of Young’s Petition for Certiorari. We urge the Court to overturn the two-step test used in many Second Amendment challenges. We also challenge the “longstanding” ban in Hawaii, most of which occurred during the time Hawaii was governed by a Monarchy. We demonstrate why certiorari should be granted even though New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett is pending before the court. And we trace the numerous criticisms by Justices and Judges as to how the lower courts have treated the Second Amendment since Heller and McDonald.
Gloucester County School Board v. Gavin Grimm
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the Gloucester County School Board case, which now has been been in litigation for over five years. This case involves a high school girl who claimed that her high school violated Title IX by not allowing her to use the boys’ bathroom because she “identifies” as a boy. By a vote of 2-1, the Fourth Circuit panel found a violation. Our brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, explains why the School Board made the right choice, and shows why Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were not violated.